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: "Greg London" <teloscorbin AT gmail.com>
  • 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 17:06:53 -0400

On 8/11/06, rob AT robmyers.org <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
Any system where Charlie cannot make an iSuck
version himself is not free,

I'm trying to think of how this would look.
If someone took some FLOSS source code,
ran it through a proprietary compiler,
and released the executable and source
code, but not the compiler, then it's
a subtle problem.

the FLOSS project would want to make its
own compiler if it could.

But I don't understand DRM enough to know
if a "FLOSS-to-DRM" converter is like a compiler
or not. I.E. is it hard to implement or reverse engineer?
I also have a feeling that such a tool might invoke the
DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. But I'm a hardware
guy, and this software stuff takes some time for me to absorb.

It would be bad* if the next iPod came out with
DRM-only playability and no tool were available
and the DMCA made it illegal to write one.

* where bad is defined as pragmatically creating
problems for a FLOSS project that needs protection
from this sort of mess.

Greg
-------
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page