cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 08:23:33 -0700

Greg, there's some truth to your market/community distinction, but
preventing forks is not the point of anti-TPM language. TPM applied by
a third party can restrict a licensee's rights that a licensor intended
in the case of any CC license. TPM can potentially (in TPM imaginary
world anyway) prevent forks -- by preventing derivative works!

Besides, removing the anti-TPM language from everything *except* BY-SA
would satisfy almost nobody (except you :) as BY-SA is one of two
licenses Debian could potentially approve and they have a problem with
the anti-TPM language. If there was a case for removing anti-TPM
language from only some licenses it would make most sense to do nearly
the opposite of what you propose (remove only from "community"
licenses)!

Another exciting sentence!

Mike!

"Greg London" wrote on September 8, 2006 7:02:00 AM PDT:
> The point of bullet 2 seems to have
> been misunderstood. I suggested that
> the anti-tpm clause be put in just the
> ShareAlike license because that's the
> one that needs protection from forks.
>
> All the market economy licenses
> NC, ND, don't really care about
> forks because the license maintains
> the original creator at an advantage.
> The community isn't being protected
> by the license, the creator is.
>
> CC-BY is a community license, but it
> allows proprietary forking, so why
> not allow DRM forking. It's like the
> BSD license or a Public Domain license
> that allows the work to be taken private,
> so CC-BY doesn't need an anti-TPM clause.
>
> CC-SA is specifically for protecting a community
> by preventing proprietary forking. TPM can be
> used to implement forking without violating
> a simple ShareAlike license with no anti-tpm clause.
> Therefore, it is only the ShareAlike license that needs
> the anti-tpm clause to prevent tpm to be used to
> fork a sharealike work.
>
> Since the anti-tpm clause is a problem for some
> people, I suggested using it only in the ShareAlike
> license so as to minimize the problem.

--
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

[cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mia Garlick, 09/08/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/08/2006
  - Message not available
    - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mike Linksvayer, 09/23/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Mike Linksvayer, 09/23/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Doug, 09/23/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 09/23/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Henri Sivonen, 09/27/2006
      - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/24/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 09/25/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 09/25/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 09/25/2006
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 09/25/2006
        
        Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 09/25/2006