Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed May 25 19:45:18 EDT 2005

On Wednesday 25 May 2005 01:47 pm, Greg London wrote:
> I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
> Rob Meyers wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 04:03PM, Greg London
> > <email at greglondon.com>
> >
> >>Could Bob use DRM on Alice's CC-BY work to transmit
> >>Alice's work only for viewing but not for downloading?
> >>Since CC-BY allows proprietary forks, allowing DRM
> >>on such a fork seems natural.

Hey Greg, (and others) I have just re-read the CC BY license wrt the:

"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly 
digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control 
access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this 
License Agreement."

(Actually 4.a. and 4.b.)

I was prompted from you statements to the effect that the BY license allows 
proprietary forks. I don't tend to think too much about the non SA license as 
that is the one I like to use and am most interested in.

I have a few general questions that popped into my head while reading and then 
perhaps some further thoughts on the thread. (I hope to add more to the 
thread as a result of the answers to the general questions.)

publicly display
publicly perform
publicly digitally perform

For the sake of initial simplicity, let's assume we are talking about a pop 

Are there any cases where a public performance of a song would be considered a 
derivative or collective work? (If so, please give an example or examples.)

Are there any cases public performance of a song would not be considered a 
derivative or collective work? (If so, please give an exampleor examples.)

> >
> > When transmitting the unaltered work (rather than a derivative), I think
> > Bob has to allow others to use the work under its CC-BY license (is this
> > right?), so he could not use DRM. When transmitting a derivative, he just
> > has to Attribute, so he can use DRM as long as he puts Alice's name next
> > to his.
> I have a hard time believing that.
> For a license that allows proprietary forks,
> what's the point of demanding the original
> must be transmitted "in the clear"?
> Anyone who wants to get around it will
> simply create a derivative, fork it
> to all rights reserved, give attribution
> to Alice, and transmit it via DRM.

What needs to be done to a work to make it into a derivative and not just, 
say, a spell corrected version of the original work?

The answer to this question may throw some light on the "derivative work" end 
run you mention. If a spell corrected or punctuation corrected version is a 
derivative, then te end run would work. If it takes big changes to make a 
derivative, the end run may fail.
> > So this is not a blanket ban on DRM as such. But I still don't think it
> > would allow dual-format provision of work (ie Real/OGG) as individual
> > copies of the work might still not allow the user to use the work in
> > accordance with the license .

Correct, there is no blanket ban on DRM that I can see, only DRM which affects 
the rights of those getting the work as protected by the DRM.
> For CC-SA works, allowing dual-format would kill
> any share-alike benefit. Anyone who wanted to
> compete against the share-alike project could
> get around the sharealike license via DRM
> and make the original available in a filing cabinet.

I think it might be worthwhile for us to think about the various uses of 
technological measures and which are inconsistent with the terms of the CC 

Also, why only technological measures? Why not legal, physical and other 
measures as well?

OK, so I can take your CC BY work and make a derivative and release my 
derivative under whatever license I want? All rights reserved? CC BY-SA, CC 
NC-ND, GPL, GFDL, whatever? Just comply with the license.

> For CC-SA, the work and the license must be atomic.
> and by atomic I mean from the Greek word 'atomos'
> meaning 'indivisible'. The work must always satisfy
> the license. If Bob transmits the work via DRM,
> it must give Charlie a version of the work that
> is free and clear of any Rights Restrictions.
> If users are allowed to split this atom, then you
> get the GPL problems of "binary" versus "source",
> and the CC licenses have no terms to handle the
> differences between these two versions.
> If CC-SA is applied to software, it would allow
> Bob to execute the code from behind the scenes
> for his website, without actually distributing
> the work and invoking the requirements of CC-SA.
> i.e. Bob can "use" the work, without "distributing" it,
> and Charlie can view the results of the work but
> cannot demand a free and clear copy. But that's
> specific to functional works getting executed
> versus artistic works getting distributed.
> If an artistic work licensed CC-SA is distributed,
> then that work is atomically bound to its license,
> and distributing the work via DRM must still
> give the recipient a version that has NO RIGHTS
> MANAGEMENT attached to it.

This is it in a nutshell. When I get the work, even if it came to me with 
technological protections/measures, I must end up with a version that I can 
excercise my rights with.
> This is the way the CC-SA license needs to be.
> I'm not entirely sure that it does this.
> I think it does. But then I thought CC-NC
> meant no monetary exchange, regardless of profit,
> so I'm no longer sure.

I am still looking for clarity on that one as well. Perhaps we should ask MIT 
how they see it as as one poster in a previous thread mentioned, they are big 
time users of it.
> Greg

all the best,


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list