Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

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 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 20:01:25 +0100

MJ Ray wrote:

I feel how CC decision-making works was missed by the above answer.

Representatives of the national porting teams and various other interest groups, including a Debian-Legal cabal, reviewed the license drafts in private. The drafts have now been made public. A first round of comments on those drafts have been gathered and very thoroughly answered by CC, and here we are discussing them.

The public draft review process was announced some months ago on the CC weblog and I believe I and others publicised this in the community.

"Because CC licenses are not drafted for software [...]"

Does this mean that the CC licences will no longer be suitable for mp3s and other software files?

I believe that Mia is here using the word "software" to refer to computer programs rather than to data files. CC licenses are not drafted for source code or for binary executables. They are drafted for cultural works, which includes works encoded in non-executable and non-human-readable formats such as MP3.

It is worthwhile repeating that CC licenses are not intended for computer programs ("software"). People are using NC and even ND licenses for PHP pages and abandonware for example, and this is harmful.

On some of the points, the lack of developers on TPM-requiring platforms speaking out seems to be advanced as reason to ignore the situation.

Which situation? Actual users of CC licenses are overwhelmingly against DRM. I'm afraid that Debian Legal's arguments in favor of DRM are fundamentally flawed, as I have argued at length on this list and elsewhere.

> Is
it really surprising that such developers are not posting to cc-licenses?

I don't understand why DRM platform developers wouldn't be posting to this list, which is easy to subscribe to, has public archives, and now has attachments in publicly documented formats.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page