Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:43:50 -0500

drew Roberts wrote:
OK, so what equivalent to having to allow people to circumvent the
DRM and to allow them to sign their own binaries for the system. can
we come up wiith in the case of CC works? I have not yet figured out
how to word a "source code" clause into the CC licenses myself. As
much as I would like to.

Greg London's point up thread is that *by design* and therefore, in a legally enforceable way, DRM providers may design their system such that developers cannot legally give away the necessary key to sign "binaries" (i.e. DRM'd content) for their platform. If the song were licensed under GPLv3, the "Corresponding Source" as defined in GPLv3 would be illegal to distribute (because it includes that key), and thus, it would be illegal to distribute the song in DRM'd form (meaning they'd be barred from that platform).

I think the fact that GPLv3 would be as prohibitive as the proposed CC-By-SA-3 language is interesting, and pretty important from Debian's PoV.

I don't if it's been mentioned here, but of course, Debian has also expressed doubts about the GPLv3 being compatible with the DFSG. OTOH, we know from a political perspective that if the FSF adopts GPLv3, then Debian is going to bend or change the rules to admit it, no matter whether it meets the existing DFSG. CC may need to insist on the same respect, or not play.

Another interesting point is that people fighting the anti-DRM clause (including specifically Linus Torvalds) in GPLv3 have said that the GPL is the wrong place to fight DRM, preferring to apply anti-DRM clauses to artistic works (as the CC licenses do), while recently we've seen arguments here that the CC licenses for artistic works are the wrong place (and presumeably that it's better to do it in the licenses for the software?).

Clearly we all need to decide who does need to do the fighting and how, or we'll wind up with no one doing it, which would be the worst outcome. As things sit, I find I'm agreeing with doing it in the CC licenses.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page