cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
- From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
- To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:01:07 -0500
Rob Myers wrote:
I believe that Debian are objecting to two related issues:> - CC licensed work cannot be distributed with DRM added.
- DRM cannot be added to CC licensed work for private use.
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.
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.
IMHO, the fair use clause has to be considered to trump any other restrictions that the license might seem to impose, but yes, I agree that clearer is better.
> 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.
I have no problem with that idea at all. We should note specifically, that this is equivalent to *GPLv3*, not GPLv2 (which doesn't restrict against DRM distribution, at least not clearly). Since GPLv3 is also controversial, that doesn't necessarily get us out of the woods, but it'd be an important piece of solidarity if the CC and FSF can agree on something! :-)
While the parallel distribution idea was a good one if it did not permit any violations of the basic freedoms, which the binary/source vs TPM/non-TPM metaphor makes it seem like it doesn't, I believe that Greg London has effectively demonstrated that the metaphor is false. There really is a difference, and the consequence is a real restriction of the "freedom to modify". Hence I now find that Debian is wrong in its analysis.
I think "DRM Dave" needs to join the "Desert Island" and "Dissident" examples among the DFSG lore, and Debian needs to rethink this point.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
, (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 10/01/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses,
drew Roberts, 10/01/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses,
Terry Hancock, 10/02/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, drew Roberts, 10/02/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses,
Terry Hancock, 10/02/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses,
Greg London, 10/01/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 10/02/2006
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses,
Mark Brown, 10/01/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Greg London, 10/01/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Rob Myers, 10/01/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 10/02/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses, Terry Hancock, 10/02/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.