[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Paul Keller paul at waag.org
Thu Aug 10 08:33:50 EDT 2006

Hey Mia,

thanks a lot for posting this and doing such an excellent summary of  
the previous discussions. i have one small question at the moment, is  
there a deadline for the public discussion period or will it go on as  
long as necessary?

all the best from amsterdam,

On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Mia Garlick wrote:

> # Public Discussion of Version 3.0 Launched:
> As was mentioned a little while ago (http://lists.ibiblio.org/ 
> pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html), we are looking to move  
> ahead with versioning the CC licenses up to version 3.0 to improve  
> the clarity of the terms of the licenses and to address some  
> concerns of one of our first and very prominent license adopters —  
> MIT, with their OpenCourseWare project (http://ocw.mit.edu/), and  
> to also take on board the concerns of the Debian group about the  
> clarity of some provisions of our licenses.
> # New US and "generic" license
> Another big feature of version 3.0 is that we will be spinning off  
> what has been called the "generic" license to now be the US license  
> and have crafted a new "generic" license that is based on the  
> language of international IP treaties and takes effect according to  
> the national implementation of those treaties.  This may only be  
> something that gets IP lawyers excited but I thought it might be  
> good to share this draft with the community as well in order to  
> ensure full transparency and in case people were interested and/or  
> had any comments.
> # Anti-DRM language - possible parallel distribution language
> Finally, there has been much discussion - preparatory to releasing  
> these drafts to the public - about whether to amend the CC licenses  
> to include a "parallel distribution" amendment to the existing  
> "anti-DRM" (or more correctly an "anti-TPM" (technological  
> protection measures)) clause of the CC licenses.  As you probably  
> now, the existing clause of the Creative Commons licenses states that:
> "You [being the licensee, not the licensor] 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."
> As you can see from the drafts below, version 3.0 includes  
> amendments designed to make this language clearer.  But there are  
> some in the Debian community that feel that this renders the CC  
> licenses inconsistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines  
> (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) (although the  
> group has deemed the FDL, which has similar if not stronger "anti- 
> DRM" language in it, DFSG-free http://www.debian.org/News/ 
> 2006/20060316) and that if CC introduces parallel distribution  
> language we could achieve both freedom of content and freedom to  
> code for open and closed systems (see this discussion for an  
> explanation of the reasoning behind allowing TPMs on free content:  
> http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM). The parallel  
> distribution provision essentially says that a licensee can apply a  
> technological protection measure to content only if they also  
> release the content in an unrestricted format.
> However, our international affiliates (http://creativecommons.org/ 
> worldwide), as well as others in our community, are strongly  
> opposed to the introduction of this amendment for various reasons,  
> including: (1) lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need  
> among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing  
> "anti-TPM" language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses  
> which defeats alot of the point of CC licenses being to be simple  
> and easy to use and understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to  
> technological protection measures by many in the CC community  
> generally.
> Consequently, CC is currently not proposing to include this new  
> parallel distribution language as part of version 3.0; however,  
> because it is not clear whether the Debian community will declare  
> the CC licenses DFSG-free without it and because it represents an  
> interesting proposal, we felt that it was appropriate to circulate  
> the proposal as part of the public discussions of version 3.0.
> The discussion about version 3.0 will occur on this cc-licenses list.
> Below are drafts of the US v 3.0 license, the new "generic" v 3.0  
> license and the parallel distribution language.
> <BY-NC-SA v 3 (080806) (US).pdf>
> <BY-NC-SA v3 (0808060) (generic).pdf>
> <2ndmarkupDRMclause#2.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
e: paul at waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list