[cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM
osm at inbox.org
Thu Apr 26 08:17:31 EDT 2012
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 04/21/2012 04:00 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> I just want to make sure that we fight against DRM with Free
>> restrictions, rather than with non-free restrictions.
>> Otherwise, the cure is worse than the disease.
> Disallowing DRM-encumbered distribution is non a non-free restriction.
> It is the prevention of a non-free restriction.
> Assuming copyleft and anti-tivoisation are not non-free restrictions.
What exactly is "anti-tivoisation"? My understanding is that the
version of it which actually made it into the GPLv3 was not a non-free
restriction, but there were several previously proposed versions of it
I can't find the part which prohibits DRM. I see the part that
"permits circumvention", section 3. And I see the part which requires
"parallel distribution", section 6 (especially "Installation
Information"). But I don't see the part which outright prohibits DRM.
Am I missing it?
And with that said, I don't think that section 6 is appropriate for
CC-BY-SA. Because CC-BY-SA *does not require source code
distribution*. Requiring "parallel distribution" of a
DRM-unencumbered version only makes sense in the context of requiring
parallel distribution of source code.
Otherwise I don't even understand how we are supposed to define DRM.
It has been said before that a source code requirement is completely
different from an anti-DRM requirement. That's interesting, because
the DMCA strongly suggests that reverse engineering (extracting source
code from a binary) is circumvention. See 17 USC section 1201(f).
If you want to read CC-BY-SA 3.0 strictly, I'd say distribution of
binaries is already prohibited. Compilation *is* a "technological
measure on the Work that restrict[s] the ability of a recipient of
the Work ... to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under
the terms of the License". Granted, that's apparently not what is
intended. But in CC-BY-SA 4.0, shouldn't we say what we mean?
More information about the cc-licenses