Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 03 April 2005 05:47 pm, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:13:44PM -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
> > "2. **Waive attribution after request to remove references**.
> >
> > In a country with "moral rights" this would not be possible and
> > would in fact be an illegal clause.
>
> If a request to remove attribution can effectively take away the
> licensee's right to distribute the work, then the work isn't free.

You have no argument with me on that point.
>
> > If a digital version is being distributed under DRM protection, would it
> > be good enough if a a blanket license was given to break the drm in this
> > case? Would it be good enough to provide a link to the same version in
> > non-DRM format? (Or provide such a version on request ala the GPL source
> > offer.)
>
> Good enough for whom? CC, or Debian?

Either and both?
>
> According to the current version of the license, neither case is good
> enough for the CC license; that situation isn't good enough for
> Debian. B-) The rough consensus at Debian is that works available
> solely under a license aren't Free Software unless the license allows
> distribution in any format, or, at least, parallel distribution in
> more than one format.

I was talking about what they were trying to accomplish, not how they are 
currently worded.
>
> Anyways, thanks for your attention and your comments.
>
> ~Evan

And thank you for your work.

all the best,

drew