[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Remove the TPM-ban

rob at robmyers.org rob at robmyers.org
Tue Aug 15 10:48:05 EDT 2006

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop>:

> I suggest replacing 'restrict' in each TPM-ban clause with
> 'have the intent or effect of restricting'.
> This language is already used in CC licensing (Scotland) and it is 
> believed to permit copying to TPM media/format along with a non-TPM 
> at-least-as-good copy.

Do you have a link for the discussion document for that? It's interesting but
I'm not sure I understand the difference in wording.

Would the at-least-as-good version have to be distributed bundled with the
DRM-ed one, or could it be made available separately? This might have
implications for streaming media.

> If format-ban clauses become common, it
> will obviously limit various uses and remixes.

A Microsoft content license that locks content to Office formats (for example)
would obviously be very bad. But DRM is not a format, it can easily be used
inside other existing formats. And support for DRM will prevent many more uses
and remixes; this is the basic sales pitch for DRM.

> Such things should not
> be in the most permissive CC licence.

Possibly. The only right reserved when BY work is used is the right of
attribution. But you do need to be able to distribute untransformed versions.

> If there is no general agreement to allow non-restricting TPM in
> general, the TPM-ban clauses should be made optional.

What in particular do you mean by non-restricting TPM? Like locking 
something to
an iPod?

The Scottish language and circumvention might be a good combination for 
DRM. This would make it basically irrelevent rather than opposing or 

- Rob.

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list