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

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Sep 29 08:37:34 EDT 2006

On Friday 29 September 2006 06:58 am, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>:
> > I think the fact that GPLv3 would be as prohibitive as the proposed
> > CC-By-SA-3 language is interesting, and pretty important from Debian's
> > PoV.
> I do not beliebve that this is the case. GPL-3 allows you to use or write
> DRM. You just cannot prevent people removing it or creating replacements.
> One solution for CC and Debian, based on the Scottish license language that
> MJ Ray has mentioned, would be for CC to allow only ineffective DRM to be
> applied.
> This would be DRM where blanket permission to circumvent has been given
> *by the
> DRM vendor*, as is included in the GPL-3.

Could this not also be accomplished by blanket permission to apply tied with 
parallel distribution?

> This would mean that GPL-3 DRM can be used on CC work, and would be a
> synergy of
> the kind I have in mind between code and content. It would also not
> restrict Free Software hackers from using CC work freely even with those
> DRM systems, which would answer Debian's concerns.
> > I don't if it's been mentioned here, but of course, Debian has also
> > expressed doubts about the GPLv3 being compatible with the DFSG.
> Their concerns about the first draft have been considered in the production
> of the second.
> If they still find the second draft incompatible with the DFSG they are
> confusing "use" with "distribution" in the same way that the Linux Kernel
> Hackers are.

This confusion of "use" with distribution and, importantly, modification and 
making derivatives is quite widespread.
> > OTOH,
> > we know from a political perspective that if the FSF adopts GPLv3, then
> > Debian is going to bend or change the rules to admit it, no matter
> > whether it meets the existing DFSG.  CC may need to insist on the same
> > respect, or not play.
> >
> > Another interesting point is that people fighting the anti-DRM clause
> > (including specifically Linus Torvalds) in GPLv3 have said that the GPL
> > is the wrong place to fight DRM, preferring to apply anti-DRM clauses to
> > artistic works (as the CC licenses do), while recently we've seen
> > arguments here that the CC licenses for artistic works are the wrong
> > place (and presumeably that it's better to do it in the licenses for the
> > software?).
> Do you have a source for Linus's comments? Possibly we should get Linus
> on here?
> > Clearly we all need to decide who does need to do the fighting and how,
> > or we'll wind up with no one doing it, which would be the worst
> > outcome.  As things sit, I find I'm agreeing with doing it in the CC
> > licenses.
> If Debian are proved right that CC licenses cannot prevent DRM and will
> only reduce freedom, that can be tackled when it becomes a problem. But the
> genie cannot be put back in the bottle. A bit like that official trademark
> Debian have that isn't DFSG-free.
> - Rob.

all the best,


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

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list