[cc-licenses] 912 emails about DRM
parkerhiggins at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 01:32:25 EDT 2012
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto at paranoici.org>wrote:
> I think this is very awkward: you *can* distribute CC-by-sa-licensed
> material in a format that hampers modifications (while keeping your
> preferred form for modification for yourself), but you *cannot*
> absolutely apply even the weakest form of DRM, not even if you make
> DRM-unencumbered copies available in parallel!
> I acknowledge that DRM is worse than source secrecy, but anyway, what I
> described above looks like a sort of self-contradiction...
I don't know if there's any real legal basis to this, but these two ideas
don't seem contradictory to me. DRM is the addition of an undesirable
feature (an anti-feature, to use the nomenclature), where source secrecy is
just the lack of a desirable feature.
Of course there are as well jurisdictions in which breaking "even the
weakest form of DRM" is illegal, but nowhere is it illegal to use a less
preferred form for modification.
san francisco, ca
gmail / gchat: parkerhiggins at gmail.com
twitter / identi.ca: @thisisparker
please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses