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

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Mon Oct 2 12:34:47 EDT 2006

Mia Garlick wrote:
>  in relation to the first point, please see line 6 on page 2 of the
>  comments posted to the list back on September 8: http://
>  lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html

Ms. Garlick, you are *such* a lawyer. ;-)

Cutting and pasting with my almighty xpdf powers:

6) Parallel Distribution Amendment


Scenario: Alejandra records a spoken-
word piece and releases the work as
BY-SA 2.5. Benito mixes Alejandra's
recording with a beat and a guitar
background and makes the resulting
song available as an MP3 and an Ogg
Vorbis file, also licensed under by-sa-
2.5. Carlos has an iSuck music player
that only plays iSuck DRM-mandatory
files. Carlos asks Benito to make an
iSuck version available, but Benito
can't because of the anti-DRM
provisions in the 2.5 licenses. So
Carlos can't listen to the song.

Comment: Carlos doesn't need for
Benito to be able to make an iSuck
version. He only needs to be able to
make it himself.


The discussion of this scenario
highlighted an important issue that is
perhaps not clear in the current
amended "anti-TPM" provision but
that was clear in the original

The original wording stated that the
licensee may not "distribute, publicly
display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform" -- significant in
its omission is the word "copy."
Consequently, the comment is
accurate that Carlos can make a copy
of a CC licensed work into an iSuck
version, he just can't share it with

The current amended anti-TPM
provision will be further amended to
reflect this distinction.

[it's not clear to me whether this is meant to have already been amended 
in draft 2, or if this response is talking about a later draft]


Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list