[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion
paul at waag.org
Fri Aug 11 08:10:24 EDT 2006
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
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