Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Keller <paul AT waag.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION
  • Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:26:14 +0200

dear all,

i have just read through all the summaries and i was wondering how this discussion does realted to the original question posted by mia when she opened the public discussion on this list. she basically offered two options for 3.0 generic. the first option was an amended version of the original anti DRM/TPM wording and the second option was to include parallel distribution language in order to make debian legal happy.

in my perception during the first part of the discussion (pre mia's excellent summary document) this list was about evenly split into a group that preferred the amended original language (mainly because CC and DRM/TPM do not mix in their eyes) and a group of people preferring the paralel distribution clause (in order to make it posible for cc materials to be used on DRM/TPM only platforms)

now i am trying to recap the second half of the discussion (mainly from the summaries) and it appears to me that the balance has shifted a bit more in direction of keeping the amended old language as the parallel distribution is considered to be fundamentally flawed (thus making it possible to use CC content on DRM/TPM only platforms does not only come at the cost of 'bowing to an evil concept' and makes the licenses more complex - both arguments raised earlier - but can also allow others monopolize free content in certain constellations.

do you think this a somewhat reasonable summary of the discussion so far? (and no i am not interested in details here i am interested in a summary that enables us to come to some kind of conclusion as a lot of us *really* wait for the 3.0 licenses for reasons completely unrelated to DRMdave and his friends). if it is i think it strongly suggests that we should go for the amended generic language (which if you have a look at mia's fisrt response in the summary document might include parallel distribution scenarios) instead of a new parallel distribution clause.

all the best,
paul (CC-NL)
--
waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
e: paul AT waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page