[cc-licenses] Position summary

melanie dulong de rosnay melanie.dulong-de-rosnay at cersa.org
Sun Oct 8 10:58:31 EDT 2006

is the latest version of the parallel distribution amendment  
suggested by Debian the one proposed at http://people.debian.org/ 
~evan/ccsummary.html ?

"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or  
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures  
that prevent the recipient from exercising the rights granted to them  
by section 8a and section 3 of this License, unless you also  
distribute, publicly display, publicly perform or publicly digitally  
perform the Work for the same recipient without those measures."

i don't think that noone is asking to be allowed to distribute CC  
content on DRM platforms, but that the risk of discrimination through  
restriction on exercizing the rights granted to the licensee look  
higher than the additional transaction cost for a DRM platform to  
negotiate separate authorizations with CC licensors. (as they may  
contact licensors for other purposes: non infringement warranties,  
check CC metadata are embedded in the work file format...).

thanks for the summarized position and the other comments toward  
compatibility with DFSG,

Le 7 oct. 06 à 18:32, Evan Prodromou a écrit :

> This is my personal position on the 3.0 licenses.
> I believe that Creative Commons has a poor reputation in the Free  
> Software community. I believe that this reputation could be  
> significantly improved if CC-licensed works were allowed into  
> Debian GNU/Linux. Debian is one of three entities that "approve"  
> licenses (Debian, FSF, OSI), and its decisions are held in high  
> regard by the greater FLOSS community.
> I'm glad that so many of the original problems we had with the 2.0  
> licenses have been solved. I think that parallel distribution is a  
> similarly minute issue. I think that parallel distribution is a  
> fair and equitable way to allow the Creative Commons message to  
> expand with DRM-required platforms without endangering the freedoms  
> of downstream users. The user has the same rights to the work  
> (play, modify, distribute) as they would otherwise; in this case,  
> the rights are spread across different file formats of the same  
> work. In the case of source/object code for programs, we have  
> another case where freedoms are distributed across different file  
> formats of the same work.
> I am concerned that we will be forced to take this decision later  
> based on market pressures; I think it's better for the CC project  
> to work out an equitable way to do it now, rather than being forced  
> into it later.
> I  reject the argument that no one is asking to be allowed to  
> distribute on DRM-required platforms; Debian is asking for it. If  
> no one was asking for it, the subject would have never come up.
> I and others have worked extremely hard for more than 2 years to  
> make these licenses compatible with the Debian Free Software  
> Guidelines. I'd like to thank Mia Garlick and Larry Lessig for all  
> their effort in this matter; also the members of the Debian  
> Creative Commons Workgroup and other debian-legal members who've  
> helped get this process moving.
> Thanks,
> ~Evan
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list