[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Paul Keller paul at waag.org
Fri Aug 11 08:10:24 EDT 2006

dear all,

as one of the people who did voice objections regarding the new DRM  
wording when it was discussed at the iSummit in Rio i want to add to  
this discussion. frankly speaking i think it is a more or less  
obscure discussion that deals with scenarios that constitute a tiny  
minority of the re-uses on would expect for a CC licensed work (this  
might off course change if TPM enabled/requiring platforms become  
more widespread, but i dont think we should engage in preemptive  
compliance here). in any case i do not think (and that judgment was  
shared by a number of other project leads) that these fringe  
scenarios are a good reason to make the licenses more complicated (if  
we focus on anything that should be making them less complicated).  
the current (2.5) & proposed (3.0) language is rather clear:

(1) it allows the licensor to use make available the work under as  
many (no-exclusive) arrangements as possible. so you can realease  
somting under a CC license and in an DRM environment like the ITMS at  
the same time.
(2) downstream users cannot add any new restrictions on the material  
by packaging it in DRM
(3) if downstream users are forced to do so (by distributing it via  
the PSP for example) they can request an extra permission. i guess  
most licensors would be more than happy to grant this permission.

i do not see what is wrong with this approach. rather making the  
licenses more clumsy and difficult to understand it puts a little bit  
of a burdon on those who think they need to add extra restrictions on  
the content. as long as scenarios like the PSP scenario are  
exceptions i do not see the need to change the licenses.

all the best,
paul keller [public project lead cc-nl]

On Aug 11, 2006, at 11:08 AM, rob at robmyers.org wrote:

> Quoting Greg London <teloscorbin at gmail.com>:
>> But Creative Commons doesn't require source code,
>> or has that changed?
> It has not. The closest you get to source is the original version.  
> And if the
> original version is only available on a DRM-laden system you cannot  
> move it to
> other system.
> This is why pleas for DRM are *not* pleas for user freedom.
>> If I have an executable for PS2
>> and make a non-DRM version available, and if making
>> a PS2 emulator for my PC is illegal because of DMCA,
>> then I really have no other way to play it, do I?
> Shhhh! The point is that not allowing DRM restricts people's  
> freedom, because
> any ban on restricting freedom is obviously a restriction on  
> freedom, and we
> cannot have restrictions on freedom. Everybody knows that! ;-)
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> 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