Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Keller <paul AT waag.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - Public Discussion
  • Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:10:24 +0200

dear all,

as one of the people who did voice objections regarding the new DRM wording when it was discussed at the iSummit in Rio i want to add to this discussion. frankly speaking i think it is a more or less obscure discussion that deals with scenarios that constitute a tiny minority of the re-uses on would expect for a CC licensed work (this might off course change if TPM enabled/requiring platforms become more widespread, but i dont think we should engage in preemptive compliance here). in any case i do not think (and that judgment was shared by a number of other project leads) that these fringe scenarios are a good reason to make the licenses more complicated (if we focus on anything that should be making them less complicated). the current (2.5) & proposed (3.0) language is rather clear:

(1) it allows the licensor to use make available the work under as many (no-exclusive) arrangements as possible. so you can realease somting under a CC license and in an DRM environment like the ITMS at the same time.
(2) downstream users cannot add any new restrictions on the material by packaging it in DRM
(3) if downstream users are forced to do so (by distributing it via the PSP for example) they can request an extra permission. i guess most licensors would be more than happy to grant this permission.

i do not see what is wrong with this approach. rather making the licenses more clumsy and difficult to understand it puts a little bit of a burdon on those who think they need to add extra restrictions on the content. as long as scenarios like the PSP scenario are exceptions i do not see the need to change the licenses.

all the best,
paul keller [public project lead cc-nl]



On Aug 11, 2006, at 11:08 AM, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:

Quoting Greg London <teloscorbin AT gmail.com>:

But Creative Commons doesn't require source code,
or has that changed?

It has not. The closest you get to source is the original version. And if the
original version is only available on a DRM-laden system you cannot move it to
other system.

This is why pleas for DRM are *not* pleas for user freedom.

If I have an executable for PS2
and make a non-DRM version available, and if making
a PS2 emulator for my PC is illegal because of DMCA,
then I really have no other way to play it, do I?

Shhhh! The point is that not allowing DRM restricts people's freedom, because
any ban on restricting freedom is obviously a restriction on freedom, and we
cannot have restrictions on freedom. Everybody knows that! ;-)

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
e: paul AT waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page