[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Sat Aug 12 13:35:30 EDT 2006


> The proprietary OS comparison simply doesn't work. A proprietary OS
> doesn't prevent me editing the source code on it. A proprietary OS
> cannot prevent me moving the source code to another platform and
> compiling it there. And so on. This does not bear comparison to DRM
> in any way.
>
> A much better comparison would be Trusted Computing. TP would defeat
> FOSS entryism. So does DRM. If someone only has an MP3 player with
> DRM on it they have worse problems than not being able to use CC-
> licensed works.

So, whether there is a problem with the propsed license
seems to hinge on whether the text I pointed out here
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-August/003896.html
has a wide or narrow interpreation.

: 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.4

If this means that you cannot put FLOSS work on a DRM-only
player, without some way of allowing that work on the same
piece of hardware without DRM, and without allowing some
legal channel for people to make their own conversions,
then it sounds like it's all hunky-dory.

If it means you can put FLOSS work on an DRM-only
player, and you can't play non-DRM versions on the player,
and you cant even legally convert your works to a
DRM-compatible format without paying iSuck Corp a lot
of money, then the barn door is open and it's only
a question of when the wolves are coming in.

Greg
-- 
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org

How to change the rules at wikipedia
to put out the flamewars and maybe get
some actual work done.




More information about the cc-licenses mailing list