[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Aug 11 17:07:58 EDT 2006
On Friday 11 August 2006 12:24 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 17:02 +0100, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> > As long as people can get access to the other format version, they can
> > recover
> > their freedom, this is true.
> Great. I'm glad you grok that.
> > But this supports DRM, pushes access to freedom
> > away from the very devices we're pleading for DRM in the name of, and
> > we'd better hope that archive.org doesn't run out of money any time soon.
> I don't think it "supports" DRM. It makes a realistic accommodation that
> allows people who are using DRM-required hardware and software platforms
> to participate in some small way in the Free Culture movement, without
> taking away their rights to copy, modify, and distribute.
> Creative Commons is not dogmatic; it is pragmatic. That's why we have
> NC, ND, Sampling, and what-have-you licenses.
Along that line, perhaps BY-SA should have anti-DRM provisions and something
like BY or BY-NC should not? I certainly do not feel the need to in any way
support proponents of DRM with the works I release as BY-SA.
> Forbidding thousands or
> millions of people from experiencing Open Content because they bought
> the wrong computer or the wrong music player doesn't help creators,
> listeners, or the Free Culture movement.
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses