bydosa at davidchart.com
Fri Jan 13 02:59:05 EST 2012
On 2012/01/12, at 9:07, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> (3) Given (2) I wonder whether copying GPLv3's approach of permitting
> circumvention would not be more powerful in giving users freedom --
> obviating (1) and need for compliance.
Would it actually work? If I distribute something on the iPhone, are people allowed to bypass the TPMs without Apple's permission, even if they have mine?
If circumvention is illegal even with permission, as it apparently is in Japan, then permission to circumvent would be a dead letter in that jurisdiction, which undermines the international applicability of the license. Parallel distribution, however, will be legal everywhere.
Having looked at the webpage on the 3.0 discussion, it seems that a major reason for dropping the parallel distribution clause was that there weren't enough real cases for it. In 2006, that was probably true. In 2011, however, we have iOS, the Kindle, and the entirety of Japanese television. Given the scope of these media, a no-TPM clause seems to be as much of a restriction of freedom as a no-hard-copy clause. It wasn't in 2006, but things have changed a lot since then.
So, I think I'm in favour of a parallel distribution clause.
More information about the cc-licenses