Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 07:47 pm, Matt Burrows wrote:
> I would add to the proposal below, the concept that you are not required to
> add the unencumbered version if prohibited by a third party agreement (eg,
> w/ RealMedia) in existence whenever the license is exercised.   This would
> address situations where a licensee has an exclusive deal with a third
> party, such as Real.

Why exactly do you think this is important, and how might you word it to 
prevent abuse?

all the best,

drew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden AT twcny.rr.com>
> Sent: May 24, 2005 3:37 PM
> To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
>
> Another thought.  As the DRM clause is currently written, it prohibits
> encumbered distribution (e.g. RealMedia).  If the DRM clause is rewritten
> so that you must provide an unencumbered version alongside every encumbered
> version, it would instead mean that, for instance, if you provided
> RealMedia you would *also* have to provide Ogg.
>
> This might be an easier sell to the proprietary-format shops: "You don't
> have to drop RealMedia, you just have to add this extra format.  Which is
> free." This is probably a better way of getting a foot in the door, anyway.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22