[cc-community] What are your thoughts on [opt-in] anti-tivoization in CC-BY-SA 4.0?

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Wed Dec 21 18:11:32 EST 2011


This sounds incredibly complicated.

I really like that I can take a work under CC-BY-SA, modify it any way
I want, release the modified work under CC-BY-SA, attribute the
author(s), and be confident that I'm not violating copyright.  It's
simple.  I don't need a lawyer to analyze things.  I don't need to
worry about someone else interpreting things differently.  Sure, if I
want to *avoid* releasing the modified work under CC-BY-SA, then I
need to worry about whether I'm making a Collection or an Adaptation,
etc.  But if I'm not worried about that, it's really simple.

If CC-BY-SA adds what you are proposing, what is the simple way for me
to ensure that I'm complying with it?

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Maciej Pendolski
<beholder0x100 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> non-profit).
>
> [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?
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-community


More information about the cc-community mailing list