[cc-community] What are your thoughts on [opt-in] anti-tivoization in CC-BY-SA 4.0?
beholder0x100 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 16:55:46 EST 2011
Let's stick to my favourite topic (computer games, what else). If I
would release my [quite] generic game engine under [A]GPL and game
content+scripts under CC-BY-SA then it would all be nice. But then
let's say that someone did a re-implementation of my engine (with
high-level scripting not much would have to work in an identical way)
and release it under ARR on iPhone App Store with my CC-BY-SA games
(I'm assuming that CC-BY-SA is allowed there [in some cases]. Tell me
if I'm wrong). Then that person would have pretty much full control
over my work on App Store (I would have to create yet another engine
if I would not have full/usable_amount_of copyright to my [A]GPL
engine any more (e.g. if I would transfer my copyright to a
[A]GPLv3 has anti-tivozation clause which prevents engine from being
usable on non-jailbroken iPhone (because of Apple's choice of course).
Could anything similar be added so that System (that re-implementation
of my game engine) on which game content would be running/"viewed"
would have to allow modifications/installation and, if necessary,
tools would have to be provided to be able do so, ...?
The simplest way for that engine to achieve compatibility would be to
operate as an interactive document browser (where documents would be
game data) and then everyone would be happy (sort of). Without
anti-tivoization a specific version/transformation of game data could
be locked to be the only allowed version of game (and with several
games the only allowed set of games). Or am I missing something?
Could anti-tivoization harm other types of content? I'm sure you could
come up with some situations. What if an opt-in anti-tivoization would
be implemented in CC-BY-SA? Then it would be business as usual for
existing content but choice would be given for new content. What are
your thoughts on that?
More information about the cc-community