[cc-licenses] Attribution license

Mark Brown broonie at sirena.org.uk
Tue Oct 3 08:26:07 EDT 2006

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 07:51:34PM -0400, Greg London wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Mark Brown <broonie at sirena.org.uk> wrote:
> > a software patent can affect the freedom of the work in
> > all situations while a restricted hardware platform impacts
> > that platform only.

> A software patent only restricts the work from ever
> using the specific functionality. If you don't use the
> functionality, the patent does not restrict you.

It's not a functionality issue.  The issue is that a new work has been
created based on the original work and users are not being granted the
freedoms that they should be to use the derived work (obviously this
doesn't apply to BSD/MIT style licenses).

> A platform monopoly only restricts the work
> when it is on that platform. If you dont use the
> platform, the monopoly does not restrict you.

More importantly, access to both the work and new works based on the
work is preserved.

I suppose one could argue that reencoding a creative commons work
generates a new work (rather than a new encoding of the same work) but
surely that would also raise issues with converting a work into a more
lossy or lower resolution format?

> But Copyleft becomes important when
> someone adds to the commons,
> expands teh pasture a little bit.
> New derivatives, bug fixes, new features,
> added on to the existing Free land,
> is where Copyleft defines Freedom
> as a two-way street.

> You can use the Commons Freely,
> but if you add to it and try to distribute
> that new derivative, you cannot fence
> that new space in. It must be made
> part of the existing commons.

I agree entirely with the above two paragraphs (for copyleft/sharealike

> Platforms are new areas as well.
> New hardware, new players, new platforms,
> are created to copy and distribute works
> from teh Commons, they create a new
> space outside the existing commons,
> and the principle of Freedom being a
> two way street still applies.

This is the point of divergence: I don't see the existance of individual
copies of a work that can't be freely used as having a substantial
effect on the freeness of the work.  Requiring people distributing
restricted copies of the work and derivitives to also provide
unrestricted copies means that the work can be used in a free manner.
The platform is restricted, the work is not.

"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list