[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Sep 23 12:38:51 EDT 2006

On Saturday 23 September 2006 11:23 am, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Greg, there's some truth to your market/community distinction, but
> preventing forks is not the point of anti-TPM language.  TPM applied by
> a third party can restrict a licensee's rights that a licensor intended
> in the case of any CC license.  TPM can potentially (in TPM imaginary
> world anyway) prevent forks -- by preventing derivative works!
> Besides, removing the anti-TPM language from everything *except* BY-SA
> would satisfy almost nobody (except you :) as BY-SA is one of two
> licenses Debian could potentially approve and they have a problem with
> the anti-TPM language.  If there was a case for removing anti-TPM
> language from only some licenses it would make most sense to do nearly
> the opposite of what you propose (remove only from "community"
> licenses)!

I am not so sure about that. I mean, if I put up a work BY, presumably, I do 
not mind if someone makes an "all rights reserved" derivative. Why would I 
care if they then put that derivative under TPM (DRM?) restrictions? 
Practically speaking?

Apply this logic to each license combo and comment if you wish.

The Debian issue is possibly a different angle.
> Another exciting sentence!
> Mike!

all the best,

> "Greg London" wrote on September 8, 2006 7:02:00 AM PDT:
> > The point of bullet 2 seems to have
> > been misunderstood. I suggested that
> > the anti-tpm clause be put in just the
> > ShareAlike license because that's the
> > one that needs protection from forks.
> >
> > All the market economy licenses
> > NC, ND, don't really care about
> > forks because the license maintains
> > the original creator at an advantage.
> > The community isn't being protected
> > by the license, the creator is.
> >
> > CC-BY is a community license, but it
> > allows proprietary forking, so why
> > not allow DRM forking. It's like the
> > BSD license or a Public Domain license
> > that allows the work to be taken private,
> > so CC-BY doesn't need an anti-TPM clause.
> >
> > CC-SA is specifically for protecting a community
> > by preventing proprietary forking. TPM can be
> > used to implement forking without violating
> > a simple ShareAlike license with no anti-tpm clause.
> > Therefore, it is only the ShareAlike license that needs
> > the anti-tpm clause to prevent tpm to be used to
> > fork a sharealike work.
> >
> > Since the anti-tpm clause is a problem for some
> > people, I suggested using it only in the ShareAlike
> > license so as to minimize the problem.

(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list