[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Greg London teloscorbin at gmail.com
Fri Aug 11 17:06:53 EDT 2006

On 8/11/06, rob at robmyers.org <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> Any system where Charlie cannot make an iSuck
> version himself is not free,

I'm trying to think of how this would look.
If someone took some FLOSS source code,
ran it through a proprietary compiler,
and released the executable and source
code, but not the compiler, then it's
a subtle problem.

the FLOSS project would want to make its
own compiler if it could.

But I don't understand DRM enough to know
if a "FLOSS-to-DRM" converter is like a compiler
or not. I.E. is it hard to implement or reverse engineer?
I also have a feeling that such a tool might invoke the
DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. But I'm a hardware
guy, and this software stuff takes some time for me to absorb.

It would be bad* if the next iPod came out with
DRM-only playability and no tool were available
and the DMCA made it illegal to write one.

* where bad is defined as pragmatically creating
problems for a FLOSS project that needs protection
from this sort of mess.

Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list