[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Oct 2 09:41:35 EDT 2006


On Monday 02 October 2006 09:01 am, Philip Hands wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Monday 02 October 2006 06:31 am, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>It also strikes me as rather similar to doing some sort of lossy
> >>compression on a music track to put it on one's phone -- the lossy
> >> version is not the one you want to work with if you wanted to sample it
> >> for some other work, it's the pre-lossy-compression version that you'll
> >> be after, in which case a clause that allowed for parallel distribution
> >> would actually be more helpful that one that kept the music off of DRMed
> >> phones.
> >>
> >>In fact, the combination of anti-DRM clause and parallel distribution
> >>almost means that it would be better if the lossy version _was_ DRM
> >>encumbered, because that would then force publication of the original.
> >>
> >>The lack of a parallel distribution permission seems to fly in the face
> >> of common sense (which I presume is why the OSM folks appear not to have
> >> noticed this problem -- I'll mention it to them).
> >>
> >>Perhaps if you're going to insist on keeping it that way, you should have
> >> a prominent health warning saying that these CC licenses should not be
> >> used by anyone that thinks that their works should be allowed to be used
> >> in a "write-only" scenario (be it rendering into a DRM format, writing
> >> it to a Garmin only format under a dodgy license, or even loading it
> >> onto a music player that doesn't allow it to be read back out again -- I
> >> presume that also counts as a technological measure to prevent copying),
> >> despite the presence of a readable copy (possibly in a much more usable
> >> format than was going onto the device).
> >
> > I don't yet get why the parallel distribution promoters are so gung ho on
> > allowing it where ony the platform maker can apply the DRM. Why can't the
> > anti-trp be in there with an exception allowing parallel distribution in
> > cases where anyone can apply the DRM but not in cases where this is not
> > so?
>
> How about if one needed to buy a license for the right to create the DRM
> version?  Would that be OK if (to continue with the OSM example) the folks
> from OSM decided to fork out $1000.00 between them in order to prepare maps
> for some whizo new GPS unit -- should the license allow that?
>
> Would it make a difference if the license cost $0.01?
>
> How about if a license cost $10,000,000.00 ?

You tell me what you think. These are some of the problems of allowing what is 
proposed.
>
> Obviously, the OSM folks might decide that they could not justify the price
> (whatever it is) but a group of whizo-GPS users might club together to do
> it -- should they be prevented from distributing their rendering of OSM's
> maps?
>
> How about a manufacturer of a DRMed GPS who takes OSM, adds some extra
> value to it, and then puts it on their device -- would the world be a
> better place if they just were simply not allowed to do it, or if they were
> allowed, but had to publish their enhanced version of the map data in a
> format that could be put back into OSM?

What is stopping them from obtaining a license to the content? Like the one 
they apparently want others to obtain to make content available on the 
platform?
>
> On an opposite tack, a manufacturer of GPS units might instead convert it
> into a format that is not DRM, but is either not very well documented, or
> is on media that nobody else makes readers for, so the data is no longer
> easily extractable -- would it not be better to insist that they publish
> the pre-conversion version, including their added value?  (perhaps this is
> already implied by the license as it stands, but didn't seem to be to me)

Well, here is the problem of finding a way to have CC incorporate the 
equivalent of the GPL's source code requirements. That is indeed a tough nut 
to crack. I would like to see it, but I can't see how, and it seems others 
can't see how either. It has been brought up off and on for a few years now 
it seems.

Please note, it seems it is only the BY-SA and BY licenses that this whole, 
sometimes heated, discussion is about.

ND rules the whole thing out. NC would seem to for the cases I am concerned 
about. People always tell me (who prefers BY-SA but is ok with using BY that 
others license) that BY-SA is a miniscule part of CC anyway.
>
> Cheers, Phil.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list