Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 25 September 2006 07:58 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  Here is a plan that I don't like and would like to prevent.
> >
> >  Write a game for a TPM platofrm. Use my BY-SA works in the game.
> >  Paralled distribution of my works seperately. Game can only play on
> >  the bad platform. So, is there some way to require parallel
> >  distribution (working mind you) of the whole project? (I hope this is
> >  a little clearer than mud.)
>
> Yes, that's unpleasant, but there's no protection against that, and TPM
> provisions have nothing to do with it. The same thing can happen if you
> have a set of resources used by a Windows platform (non-TPM) game, that
> is only available in a proprietary binary form.
>
> It is the fundamental concept of separation of "content" and "engine"
> (or "data" and "program") that creates this loophole, and has nothing to
> do with TPM.

I am not sure I agree with this. See my questions wrt the sync clause in the 
2.5 BY-SA license.

I think there may be an attempt to apply the "mere aggregation" type concept 
to this, but I am not sure the license couldn't have language to specifically 
deny this practice.
>
> The alternative is undesirable, even if there were some way to make it
> legally binding:

I am not sure all of these examples necessarily stand or fall together with 
the example I gave.
>
> If the license of the program controlled the license of data created
> with it, or the license of data controlled the license of programs that
> processed it, then many worse situations would arise:
>
> 1) You couldn't write proprietary, BSD-licensed, or other-licensed code
> in gcc: everything would be under the same GPLv2+ license that gcc is.
>
> 2) If you wrote a story and licensed it CC-By-SA, then people using
> Microsoft Word (or Internet Explorer, or Opera) couldn't legally read
> it. In fact, even Mozilla couldn't be used, because it's under the MPL,
> not the CC-By-SA (and they aren't compatible).
>
> and so on
>
> Even in the remote case that you did like this scenario, you really
> don't have the legal authority, because you're overstepping the bounds
> of the work (you don't have any legal ownership over the things you want
> to control the license to -- even the copyleft can't claim it).
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145