[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion
ml at creativecommons.org
Sun Aug 13 18:20:51 EDT 2006
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 12:40 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> For a license with an anti-DRM clause, one way to solve this is to drop
> the clause altogether. Another way, which may preserve rights for
> recipients of downstream works, is to allow DRM'd formats if and only if
> the work is also made available in unencumbered format, too. This is
> "parallel distribution".
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 16:03 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> Embracing DRM will not move the movement forward. Unless you spin it
> 180 degrees.
I'm surprised nobody AFAICT has suggested just that -- rather than
disallow DRM, explicitly give authority to circumvent. The DMCA seems to
allow this -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:6:./temp/~c1059gv3KK::
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted
work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate,
or impair a technological measure, without the authority
of the copyright owner; and
GPLv3 draft 2 maybe does this --
No covered work constitutes part of an effective technological
"protection" measure under section 1201 of Title 17 of the
United States Code. When you convey a covered work, you waive
any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures
that include use of the covered work, and you disclaim any
intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a
means of enforcing the legal rights of third parties against the
But that doesn't sound very explicit to this lay idiot.
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 18:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> * FSF believes there are practical problems with the use of
> 'Distribute' in a generic/international license:
> Has CC looked at this discussion? Is there any intent to replace the
> Distribute/Publicly Perform language with something more
> jurisdiction-neutral in the generic license?
> * Similarly, the use of 'effective technological measures' in 4.b
> seems very US-specific- that is straight out of DMCA, no? (I thought
> the gpl v3 second draft had comments that addressed this specific
> phrase, but I can't find them at the moment.)
GPL3 2nd draft explicitly mentions the US DMCA despite
denationalization. See the text quoted above and footnote 39 of the
draft 2 rationale -- http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 18:53 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> [Tangentially, having just read Evan's summary:
> 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?]
I'm guessing that two different activities are being confused here.
Various legal jurisdiction leads met to discuss 3.0 and decided to drop
the parallel distribution language from the draft. I don't know if
there was a vote and if there was it was not an "iCommons" vote. In any
case there is ample opportunity for input from people who did not attend
the summit or that particular meeting (I'm in the latter group), like
A plenary session did include votes on whether iCommons (which has no
responsibility for CC licenses) should pursue various declarations,
including http://wiki.icommons.org/index.php/Declaration_on_DRM -- there
was no dissent regarding further consideration of feel-good but
irrelevant to cc-licenses declarations. :)
On Sat, 2006-08-12 at 20:29 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> As Mia pointed out, the standing of anti-DRM clauses in licenses is
> still murky within the Debian project. If there is a parallel
> distribution language in the 3.0 licenses, I'm almost 100% sure that
> Attribution 3.0 and Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0-licensed works will be
> allowed in Debian. If there is not parallel distribution language, then
> I am optimistic but far less sure.
> So, please consider whether the problems you have with parallel
> distribution are worth blowing this opportunity. Debian and Creative
> Commons will probably never again be able to muster the time and effort
> that we have over the last 18 months to make things work.
> And I also doubt that Free Software advocates will look kindly on a
> project that had a chance to make their licenses compatible with the
> DFSG, but decided not to.
> I'd appreciate it if people would factor this into their decisions.
On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:31 -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Yes, this point is 100% political. Having CCPL-licensed works in Debian
> would be a very good thing for both projects.
I agree with Evan.
But note that IANAL, do not speak for CC on anything vaguely
legal-related, and anything written above by me should be taken as wild
speculation at best.
More information about the cc-licenses