Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

On Sep 30, 2006, at 12:59 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
<cut>

> I believe that Debian are objecting to two related issues:
>
> - DRM cannot be added to CC licensed work for private use.
> - CC licensed work cannot be distributed with DRM added.
>
> The first point is a breach of both the DFSG and the FSD. More
> importantly it is a breach of Fair Use. It is therefore unacceptable
> both for Free Software and more importantly for Free Culture.

in relation to the first point, please see line 6 on page 2 of the  
comments posted to the list back on September 8: http:// 
lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html


> The CC-NC-SA v3 draft (like its predecessors) has a Fair Use statement
> but its DRM restrictions appear to clash with this for personal  
> use, so
> the license should be regularised. Looking at clause 4a I think  
> that if
> CC change "impose any technological measures on the work" to  
> "distribute
> the work with any technological measures imposed" then we have a clear
> equivalent to the GPL.
>
> If I have misunderstood the license and this is already the case  
> then I
> apologise profusely.
>
> The second point is not a breach of the FSD, and is not a breach of  
> Fair
> Use IMHO (the use is not personal and is competitive). I also believe
> that it is not a breach of the DFSG, but *even if it was* this  
> would not
> be a primary issue for a Free Culture license rather than a Free
> Software one.
>
> > So, if you released a song under the GPLv3, instead of CC-By-SA-3,  
> > you
> > still can't port it to a DRM-only platform.  The reason is that you
> cannot
> > provide "Corresponding Source" for it, which would be the non-DRM
> > song, plus the DRM key so that it can be DRM'd for the platform.  The
> > GPL says that if you can't distribute the source, you can't  
> > distribute
> > the binary.
> >
> > The explanation is a little different, but the result is the same:  
> > both
> > GPLv3 and CC-By-SA-3 would block the kind of distribution Debian
> > is asking for (at least in Greg London's example case).
>
> I have explained above how I believe CC-3 goes further.
>
> Greg's example case is the current standard use of DRM. This is how
> current music stores, music players, game consoles and handhelds  
> all use
> it.
>
> All the hardware for these systems will currently play non-DRM media
> though. So it is only when we wish to volunteer to take on the  
> problems
> of proprietary game software developers that there is a problem.
>
> > >  One solution for CC and Debian, based on the Scottish license
> > >  language that MJ Ray has mentioned, would be for CC to allow only
> > >  ineffective DRM to be applied. This would be DRM where blanket
> > >  permission to circumvent has been given *by the DRM vendor*, as is
> > >  included in the GPL-3.
> >
> > But I think Greg has a point: anyone who's going to provide that  
> > could
> > more easily just let non-DRM'd media play on the platform, leaving no
> > reason to allow DRM at all.
>
> I agree. But if people wish to use Free Software on DRM platforms,  
> this
> would allow them to do so under GPL-3. This would answer Evan's  
> argument
> that the licenses prevent work form being used by Free Software on DRM
> systems.
>
> > >  If they still find the second draft incompatible with the DFSG they
> > >  are confusing "use" with "distribution" in the same way that the
> > >  Linux Kernel Hackers are.
> >
> > That's a strong assertion (that the Linux Kernel Hackers are indeed
> > misunderstanding). I'm not sure Eben Moglen understands the full
> > impact of the new wording in the GPLv3. It's too new.
>
> You are correct and I apologise for this comment.
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses