[cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Oct 3 18:23:55 EDT 2006


OK, I think I see some things I agree with and some things I don't...

On Tuesday 03 October 2006 09:34 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> Patrick Peiffer wrote: [...]
>
> > discussed here at extreme frequency by very few people lately. Please,
> > make one short, to the point  wrap-up of what you has been contributed
> > to the public discussion so we can understand and continue.
>
> As I'm probably the person with the least bandwidth posting to this
> list, I like this suggestion.  So, I suggest:
>
> 1. intuitively, the Creative Commons Attribution and
> Attribution-ShareAlike licences should be compatible with the Debian
> Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) when applied to software;

Yes. Intuitively.
>
> 2. Technological Protection Measures (TPM) are a problem and it is a
> good idea to counteract them with licence *judo* that makes people roll
> over as we want, similar to the GPL's approach to binary-only
> distribution;

Yes. Hmmm.
>
> 3. The anti-TPM language proposed in the current draft is more like
> licence *sumo*, just pushing back at the problem in a way that makes it
> difficult for people stood behind the TPM problem in the queue to get
> past and still enter our side;

Not really. No. Maybe.
>
> 4. I don't see why the last anti-TPM language I saw would mean "You can
> apply DRM to your local copy and play it on your own hardware player"
> [Greg London] in any generic way, nor why we should forbid public
> TPM-encoding.  Also, that anti-TPM language seems like it would still be
> hazardous after we succeed in reversing the bad TPM laws;

I am not sure I get what you are saying here.
>
> 5. Better anti-TPM language already exists in the CC-Scotland drafts,
> but an equivalent solution in the treaty-style phrasing of the generic
> licences could be acceptable too.

Can you explain this point by point as to why you think it is better?
>
> [END WRAP-UP]
>
>
>
> Breaking the short bit, I also make the following notes about other
> contributions since my last download of list email:
>
> A. Some participants seem to the assume that everyone else is in the
> same wired-up liberal-lawed situation that they are, with exactly the
> same skills they have.  We are not.  This does not make our
> contributions wrong.  We each need to argue for our interests, but not
> sharing someone's interests does not necessarily dismiss their argument.

Yes.

> For example:
>
> Greg London wrote:
> > How much does bandwidth cost where you live?
> > Over here, it's pretty cheap. Dirt cheap.
>
> Currently? GBP6.00 per hour at 9600bps.  (I'm involved with a weeks-long
> problem with the only telephone network provider in town, trying to get
> a line installed.  The indefinite nature of it means I have some other
> ways, but they are fiddly - I will probably buy discs of some large
> files I want if this situation continues much longer.)
>
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > 2) DRM application, unlike binary compilation is a technically trivial
> > process. This means that there is no significant burden on the end user
>
> I saw this repeated several times, but I think it's obviously not true.
> A binary compilation:
>   cc -ofoo foo.c
> can be as technically trivial a process as a DRM application:
>   tp -ofoo.tpm foo.ogg
> but many people still won't want to do it themselves.  I've yet to see
> anything to suggest that TPM is inherently not a translation.

I think his point is that application of TPM is always going to be trivial 
whereas compilation of source code will not always be simple even if it 
sometimes is. Also, I think he pointed out where the application of DRM could 
be made an invisible part of the download process. (Not that that last bit 
would help in all cases.)
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> >  The first point is a breach of both the DFSG and the FSD. More
> >  importantly it is a breach of Fair Use. It is therefore unacceptable
> >  both for Free Software and more importantly for Free Culture.
>
> Can the generic licence safely rely on fair use, which seems to vary
> wildly around the world?  I thought I'd seen it defined in the Berne
> treaty as essentially whatever the local laws say.  Reliance on 'fair
> use' to make a licence free is something I see as a big warning sign.

I would NOT want to rely on fair use. As I have seen it explained by US 
lawyers, when dealing with fair use, you get sued for infringement and use 
"fair use" as a defence. I would prefer not to end up in court in the first 
place. Plus, fair use is "wishy washy."
>
>
>
>
> B. Do not overgeneralise or use examples that are obviously not true.
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> > [...] But after that first moment it either burdens
> > downstream producers in a way that providing source does not (I need
> > source to edit chmod, I do not need source to mash-up an OGG track),
>
> You do not *need* source to edit chmod.  As root, type:
>   vi /bin/chmod
>   2GC I am the Balti King. [Escape]ZZ
>
> Congratulations!  You have just edited chmod!  Of course, it's pretty
> terrible, but so are most of my mash-ups of OGG tracks.  ;-)

Well, I have always felt that CC should require source if we can ever figure 
out the right way to do so. It would be much better to get a multitrack 
ardour project archive than a lossy ogg file to make a derivative from.
>
> Greg London wrote:
> > So, should we allow Microsoft to pull in some GPL'ed
> > linux code into its OS or applications and let
> > Microsoft parallel distribute the source code
> > of the linux software but not their own code?
>
> I thought that had happened.  I'm sure Microsoft have pulled BSD code
> into its software in the past.  Microsoft does some evil things, but not
> everything.  Maybe that's a problem with the DRM Dave story: it
> demonises Dave.  He might be Dave the Chameleon, merely an ignorant
> crowd-follower, rather than actively malevolent.

BSD, so I hear. If GPL and anyone knows of it, I would think you would have 
seen some action.
>
> Greg London wrote:
> > One could likewise argue that software patents
> > should not be restricted in a copyright license
> > for a FLOSS community. [...]
>
> I do.  They should be in a patent licence.  I think that's pretty
> obvious.  Keep the problems independent, as far as possible.

Well, many of us don't since we do write code and make artistic works and 
don't file for or get patents but the patent holders threaten us. We will use 
what we can even if it is not optimal. There is a saying where I come from:

If ya een gat horse ya gatta ride cow.
>
>
>
>
> C. Do not expect a copyright licence to solve all problems.

True. That doesn't mean we can't use it to try and solve those that we think 
it might solve or help solve.
>
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > After reading Greg's "DRM Dave" scenario I am convinced that he's right
> > after all and parallel distribution does not solve the question of
> > "platform lock-in". [...]
>
> For all its cute names, the DRM Dave story seems to make several
> assumptions, including my points A (everyone is a clone of me) and B
> (overgeneralisation and buggy examples) above.

Yes, but no one will comment on what we should do when all of the available 
players a DRM only and only other people (DRM-Dave, DRM-Dan, and DRM-Doug) 
can sell our works and we can't. Our only recourse would be to slap on an NC 
and that is one thing I do not wish to do with my works.
>
> Further, using it to argue that even the CC-By licence should contain
> anti-TPM would mean that CC-By would prevent such lock-in while not
> doing anything to stop other copyright-based lock-ins.  That would be
> bizarre.  DRM Dave is not a tenable argument for an anti-TPM CC-By.

Wrong. And please, do me a favour someone and address this. DRM would allow 
lock-in of the work, copyright will only allow lock-in of derivatives and not 
of the work. Does anyone disagree with this fact? (Am am not asking if you 
consider the fact a problem, just if you think it is not so.)
>
> Greg London wrote:
> > Because source distribution means you can use the
> > source code ON THE SAME PLATFORM. But DRM with parallel
> > means you get the parallel copy, but YOU'LL NEVER
> > BE ABLE TO USE IT ON THE SAME  PLATFORM DAVE DOES. [...]
>
> Personally, I think ShareAlike could deal with DRM Dave by requiring
> him to ShareAlike, including permission to use his DRM encoder for all
> derived works.  

Yes. And I have been looking for objections to this and have not seen it 
addressed.

> If - as suggested IIRC - it is impossible to do that 
> with current law while still keeping his DRM a DRM, so be it.  We
> already know weak DRM is supported by a buggy law.

What about my suggestion if DRM-Dave will commit to giving signing ability to 
someone we do trust. Debian was used in my example.+
>
> > Dave has a platform monopoly that would be similar
> > to Microsoft distributing Linux/Microsoft executables,
> > distributing some of their source code, and then
> > using DRM and DMCA to PREVENT ALICE AND BOB FROM EVER
> > COMPILING THAT SOURCE CODE ON A MICROSOFT SYSTEM.
>
> Hello!  Cross-compilers!  I have had GPL'd apps on a Palm computer, but
> I can't compile them on it.  (see point B on overgeneralisation)
>
> Availability of convenient tools for the TPM-encoding is a different
> problem and I feel it's one that should not be covered directly by a CC
> licence.  It is a terrible motivation for banning all TPM.

I am not sure I follow this.
>
>
>
>
> D. Do not tell other people what they think when it is possible that
> you have simply misunderstood their expressions of those thoughts, or
> (worse) prejudged them.
>
> Greg London wrote:
> > The only people who are NOT happy are people who
> > want to sell DRM-only versions of CC-SA over the web,
> > or over some physical medium that uses DRM.
>
> And people like me who think they may want to buy DRM/non-DRM parallel
> copies of CC works.  And probably some others have other reasons too.

I have no problem with you buying my BY-SA works in DRM/non-DRM form so long 
as you have the option to buy from me if I so desire. (Buy them from whomever 
you want mind you, I just want the option to offer them.)
>
> Sorry if anyone thinks that makes us evil.  I think it just means we (or
> our friends) weren't clueful enough when a certain player was obtained,
> or our market offered no viable alternatives for an initial compulsion.
>
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > Finally, I have suggested that this is more than just a Creative Commons
> > or Free Culture issue. Debian is making a mistake by claiming that
> > parallel distribution meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
>
> There are some who hold that opinion, but it has not been explained on
> debian-legal in any understandable way yet.
>
> > IMHO, the problems above render the work *non-free* under the Free
> > Software Definition and in violation of the Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines.
>
> Some parts of some derived works may be non-free, yes.  However, one
> must consider the whole work, else you'll find several of the DFSG
> violated by every package in the archive, which is clearly absurd.

??? What? Which parts of which derived works are non-free?
>
> > [seen several times:] I suggest that Greg's "DRM Dave" example is just
> > as important a lithmus test as the existing "Desert Island",
> > "Dissident", and "Tentacles of Evil" tests which Debian Legal uses to
> > examine new license terms that are in question [...]
>
> Whoa!  Anyone who has experience on debian-legal should know that those
> tests are merely indicators - like the litmus test - and not definitive
> proofs of DFSG failure.  A litmus test can give screwy indications, just
> like DRM Dave gives some screwy indications of some of the anti-TPM
> suggestions.  Of course, it's better not to give the wrong indications,
> but sometimes it is simpler.
>
>
>
>
> E. It is about format bans:
>
> rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> > This is not a case of format bans. DRM can be contained within existing
> > file formats, Apple's use of MP4 is a good example of this. We are not
> > discussing banning MP4. Rather we are discussing how data stored in
> > various file formats affects the file legally.
>
> Rather, given your preferred type of solution, there would exist some
> pattern which MP4 files of any part of a CC'd work could not match.
> That is a format ban.  Allowing some MP4 files which do not match the
> pattern only emphasises the ban.
>
> [...]
>
> > > DRM-banning clauses are an attempt to use law to outlaw code.
> >
> > DRM is law, not code. And it is law that outlaws code, ask Skyralov.
>
> No, DRM is both law and code.  The law currently props up weak and evil
> code, but it need not always be so.  Does anyone really not see that?

OK, but as long as it is law, it poses special problems. Does everyone see 
that?
>
> > The GPL-3
> > demonstrates how TPM code can be written without the effects of TPM law.
> > I think we both agree that this would be a good way of tackling the
> > issue.
>
> Indeed.  Similar smart solutions for CC3.0 would be a brilliant outcome.
>
> In hope,

Indeed, in hope. I think if we would actually try and address some of these 
things that seem to be falling through the cracks, even if just to say bunk 
and give a brief explanation as to why, we might get more done. I personally 
feel I have repeated myself several times, but it is because I have not seen 
the points / ideas addressed. I would not imagine I am the only one.

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