[cc-licenses] Clarification needed: parallel distribution
invernomuto at paranoici.org
Fri Jan 27 16:27:58 EST 2012
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:56:13 +0000 Rob Myers wrote:
> On 13/01/12 18:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:06:02 +0000 Rob Myers wrote:
> >> On 11/01/12 22:52, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >>> The big question is: does the clause allow a licensee to distribute a
> >>> TPM-encumbered form of the work, as long as he/she also make a clean
> >>> (unencumbered) form available in parallel? If this parallel
> >> It does not and should not. DRM is unacceptable for software and it is
> >> unacceptable for cultural works.
> > That fact that DRM is unacceptable should encourage to introduce
> > non-free restrictions to fight against it.
> We haven't established that prohibiting DRM is nonfree.
I am convinced that some (excessive) forms of prohibition of DRM are
I think that there are indeed ways to fight against DRM without
introducing non-free restrictions. But forbidding all kinds of
distribution of DRM-encumbered copies is a non-free restriction, IMHO.
I think that allowing the distribution of DRM-encumbered with the
parallel distribution of an unencumbered copy adequately fights against
DRM and protects the recipients' freedom.
> However Debian appear to have established that it is free. BY-SA 3.0 was
> declared DFSG-compatible.
Yes, and I disagree with the Debian Project decision-makers on this
Please remember that I am not speaking on behalf of the Debian Project.
The opinions I express here are my own and my own only.
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20120127/ffdf897c/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-licenses