[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Oct 1 08:29:18 EDT 2006
On Sunday 01 October 2006 05:47 am, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 11:31:00PM -0400, Greg London wrote:
> > > Free software licenses have been almost universally
> > > silent on the issue of copy protection because those
> > > licenses that require derivative copies to be Free
> > > count on a form of parallel distribution (source
> > > availability), and those that don't require downstream
> > > copies to be free don't make any such demands.
> > I think this is an unfair telling of history.
> > Free software licenses have been silent about
> > copy protection for a long time because
> > copy protection on PC's and the like
> > was being abandoned by most distributers
> > as ineffective and problematic.
> In technical terms it's exactly the same thing. See for example the
> problems Microsoft is having with FairUse4WM.
> > And then in 1998, the DMCA made it illegal to
> > thwart copy protection, and I believe that's
> > when Free software licenses started taking notice.
> I can't think of a license that attempts to do much beyond parallel
> distribution that has actually become popular. Remember that free
> software people are also often the sort of people who will do things
> like encrypt the hard drives on their laptops for security purposes.
So what is the big ruckus over the GPL3 then?
>  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/fairuse4wm_news.html
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses