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

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 07:50:33 EDT 2006

On Sunday 01 October 2006 05:05 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> rob at robmyers.org wrote: [...]
> > One solution for CC and Debian, based on the Scottish license language
> > that MJ Ray has mentioned, would be for CC to allow only ineffective
> > DRM to be applied. This would be DRM where blanket permission to
> > circumvent has been given *by the DRM vendor*, as is included in the
> > GPL-3.
> or where the DRM does not restrict the recipient, or other situations
> we're probably not clever enough to think up ourselves.
> > This would mean that GPL-3 DRM can be used on CC work, and would be a
> > synergy of the kind I have in mind between code and content. It would
> > also not restrict Free Software hackers from using CC work freely even
> > with those DRM systems, which would answer Debian's concerns.
> I think it would.
> [...]
> > If Debian are proved right that CC licenses cannot prevent DRM and will
> > only reduce freedom, that can be tackled when it becomes a problem.
> We seem to agree on the basic requirements of freedom to enjoy, study,
> adapt and share, so why should it need blood before this loose cannon of
> anti-TPM language is secured?
> If the pro-format-discrimination voices persuade CC to again refuse to
> fix an obvious *potential* problem before it becomes an *actual*
> problem, so causing overloaded volunteers yet more work, then I think
> that's inconsiderate beyond belief.

Well, you see, there are some on the anti-pro-format-discrimination side of 
the fence that say the other side should only deal with actual problems and 
not potential problems. Now you want to address potential probelms that you 
see arising, but we are not to address potential problems that we see 
arising. That is not going to fly and I can't see agreement being reached as 
long as we are insisting that only the problems that one view forsees can be 
> I wish I knew the detail of any other reasons for CC's formal rejection
> of source distribution as an option.  Complexity can be handled by
> importing a past solution from a working CC licence.  The effectiveness
> against monopolies is well-known from the GPL.  Practical problems like
> the size required for two copies will be reduced with time and also
> provide a strong incentive for non-TPM systems.  Where's the beef?

Will you address this please? Here is the beef:

Some of us see the possibility that the only players available in the market 
will be DRM only players. If that comes to pass, where will we be. If you 
will answer that in a satisfactory way, I think it would do this discussion a 
world of good.
> > But the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. A bit like that
> > official trademark Debian have that isn't DFSG-free.
> IMO, it's fairly obvious how to fix that one, but it is not easy getting
> the relevant executives to act and the general resolution system is
> unseasonably busy just now with more widely-vexing matters like overall
> project leadership and what can honestly be put in the next release.
> Hope that explains,

I hope my comments to you explain the concers of some of us on the other side 
right now.

all the best,

(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list