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: Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.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 22:31:46 +0100

On 11 Aug 2006, at 22:06, Greg London wrote:

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.

Oh by an iSuck version I mean an iSuck-ified music file, not a version of the iSuck software.

Sorry, I was unclear there.

So what I should have said is:

If only SuckCorp (or SuckCorp's restricted licencees) can encode iSuck files, iSuck files are not free.

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?

You may be able to reverse engineer some current DRM. iTunes DRM is typically cracked as soon as it is upgraded. But to do so is illegal because of the DMCA, and when Trusted Computing comes in you won't be physically able to analyse it.

For good (anti-)DRM/TP overviews see:

http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page