[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

Evan Prodromou evan at prodromou.name
Sun Oct 1 11:53:27 EDT 2006


On Sun, 2006-01-10 at 11:18 -0400, Greg London wrote:
> You can apply DRM to your local copy and play it on your
> own hardware player. You just can't distribute that copy.
> Alice and Bob can still play on a DRM platform.

But they can't share with their neighbour. That's why the anti-DRM
clause makes the licenses incompatible with freedom. If you can't share
your copy, then the work isn't Free. Let's look at the Free Software
Definition:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I quote:

        The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of
        person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system,
        for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required
        to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific
        entity. [...]

        The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or
        executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for
        both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in
        runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free
        operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a
        binary or executable form for a certain program (since some
        languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
        freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a
        way to make them.

You want to put other values -- some sort of macroeconomic manipulation,
as far as I can tell -- ahead of the Freedom of people to share playable
versions of works.

Why? As far as I can tell it has to do with your idiosyncratic economic
theories. I guess that's part of your personal frame of reference, but
it doesn't gibe with mainstream Free Software and Free Content thinking.



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list