[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Aug 12 08:50:42 EDT 2006


On Friday 11 August 2006 06:53 pm, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > You may be able to reverse engineer some current DRM. iTunes DRM is
> > typically cracked as soon as it is upgraded. But to do so is illegal
> > because of the DMCA, and when Trusted Computing comes in you won't be
> > physically able to analyse it.
>
> This is a pretty good summary of the compiler/DRM comparison.
>
> In comparison, the GPL *assumes* that code is available (because of
> other clauses in the license). GPL v3 adds additional
> tool-related/DRM-related clauses which primarily focus on making sure
> the available code is useful and unrestricted.
>
> What CC seems to be doing is the reverse- assume that the 'source'
> might not be available, and then use some language to force
> availability. So maybe that suggests a strategy to make the parallel
> distribution clause more clear: phrase the license such that an
> unencumbered/unDRM'd copy of the 'source' (i.e., the music/video/what
> have you) must always be available, and then allow the distributor to
> post-process the file into whatever DRM-ish formats they so choose.
>
> It could look like this:
>
> "You must always distribute the Work/Adaptation in a format which does
> not restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work to exercise the
> rights granted to them under the license ("Unrestricted Format"). You
> may, in addition, distribute the Work/Adaptation in a format which
> restricts the ability of a recipient to exercise the rights granted to
> them under the license ("Restricted Format"), provided that the
> Unrestricted Format is at least as accessible to the recipient as a
> practical matter as the Restricted Format."
>
> That approach feels much more readable to me, and makes it clear that
> the organization's focus is on unrestricted formats, and DRM'd formats
> are only an afterthought. If that is insufficient, perhaps something
> like 'and provided that the Restricted Format is an unavoidable
> requirement of the targeted software platform' (to make it clear that
> DRM can be used only in the PS2/PSP/etc. case) could be added at the
> end.

If I were to buy this, I would add "and you have no interest in said platform 
and are not made to pay a penalty by those with an interest in the platform" 
so that other's could sell works on the platform, but the maker of the DRMed 
platform couldn't. (Personally, I want my BY-SA works to further my 
interests.)
>
> [Tangentially, having just read Evan's summary:
>
> http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report
>
> I'm frankly shocked that iCommons would allow an in-person vote in a
> country that was very expensive to get to determine policy for the
> organization. Is that really what happened?]
>
> > What I'm yet not clear on is whether the DRM clause protects
> > against [proprietary forks] or not. No one has yet answered that
> > question. ANd I still ahven't had time to comb the license wording
> > myself.
>
> The relevant clause is pretty short if you want to read it, Greg- it
> will take a lot less time to read it than it has taken you to write
> about it without reading it, I guarantee :) And to answer your
> question, yes, assuming the parallel distribution language is
> included, then proprietary forks are effectively prohibited.
>
> "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."
>
> There is a similar clause with Work replaced by Adaptation.
>
> HTH-
> Luis

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list