[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion
evan at prodromou.name
Thu Aug 10 13:57:51 EDT 2006
On Thu, 2006-10-08 at 16:47 +0100, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> If Betty is trying to add DRM to derive work she is effectively
> relicensing the work proprietary, which DFSG certainly doesn't allow.
That's doesn't make any sense. A license for a work is different from
the technical format of a work. An image in Gimp format is not
"effectively" under the GPL.
> And even if it did, we are being asked to privilege Betty's
> distribution rights over the world's usage rights.
No, we're being asked to ensure both.
> The problem is that the alternative will be offered in the bottom of a locked
> filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
> 'Beware of the Leopard'. It will have a large handling fee, and will be 16-bit
> 64kbps quality in mono.
The proposed text doesn't allow any of those weaselly manoeuvres. To
You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
exercise the rights granted to them under the License
(“Restricted Format”) unless You also make a copy or phonorecord
of the Work available to the recipient, without additional fee,
in at least one medium that does not restrict the ability of a
recipient of that copy or phonorecord of the Work to exercise
the rights granted to them under the License, provided that that
copy or phonorecord of the Work is at least as accessible to the
recipient as a practical matter as the Restricted Format.
It's definitely not going to win any poetry prizes, but it does seem to
be pretty fair.
More information about the cc-licenses