Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
  • Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 14:53:47 +0100

On 21 May 2005, at 13:31, toddd AT mypse.goracer.de wrote:

DRM distribution is to CC what binary distribution is to GPL.

That's not really the case. A compiled binary will run on another computer. A DRM-ed file won't even run on the same computer without the correct registration.

It's more the case that DRM is to CC what "trusted computing", hardware dongle keys, registration codes or other preventative measures are to the GPL. And the GPL wouldn't allow any of those.

CC doesn't differentiate between source and final versions of works. I would very much like a clause for the licenses that requires provision of source, a "PS" module as it were. But I don't think that this is comparable to the no-DRM clause because an editable version of the work is not the same as the source.

So for example, I have a song from iTunes Music store that has DRM on it. I request an editable version from the publisher. They send me an OGG file. This is not DRM-ed, and is editable through sampling and mixing techniques, but it is still not the editable *source* for the work. The editable source for the work would be the original sequencer file, vocal recordings, and samples or patches (or whatever) used to make the music.

The DRM clause in CC is closer to the "transparency" clause in the GNU FDL.


But the GPL does not forbid binary distribution, it just forces you to make the source available.
A similiar approach for CC and DRM might be helpfull?

Such a clause would be wide open to abuse.

So for example, I have a song from iTunes Music store that has DRM on it. I request a transparent version from the publisher. They tell me that will cost twenty dollars to cover their costs. I send off the money. Six weeks later I get a low-quality audio tape with the song on.

Some people do use the offline source provision clause of the GPL to try to hide their code, but I believe that the problem would be far greater with music and video files for example.


As another poster pointed out far more eloquently than I could, the no-DRM clause is important for the future success of CC licensing, however much it may affect its immediate popularity with those who would wish to abuse it. The no-DRM clause *must* stay, and must *not* be rendered ineffective by anything that would allow it to be circumvented in practice.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page