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: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen AT iki.fi>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION
  • Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 03:11:35 +0300

On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:22, Terry Hancock wrote:

Flickr

I don't see why Flickr is considered a stakeholder here. They allow All Rights Reserved photos and the photos there are TPMless JPEGs. Flickr isn't a licensor. Flickr's customers, such as me, are.

Since TPM-only platforms are mostly still just dystopic science fiction,
there's probably a lot of people for whom the discussion is still just
too academic.

I believe the best way to discourage vendors forcing TPM-only dystopia unto all of us is to create a large body of compelling content that comes with an anti-TPM license, so that any vendor trying to sell a TPM-only platform would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to vendors of platforms that don't *require* TPM.

I find it downright bizarre that CC-By and CC-By-SA are not already considered
admissable to Debian main.
...
IMHO, CC-By-SA is a superior license to the
FSF's FDL, which I think is over-complicated, so I hate to see FDL being
accepted when CC-By-SA is not.
...
To be honest, that's why I joined this discussion

Me too!

I joined this list and debian-legal, because the Mozilla folks asked me to license documentation under either CC-by or CC-by-sa and I had a bad feeling about using a license that wasn't approved by Debian.

After finding out what Debian's objections were and after pondering the issue, I have come to believe that CC should retain anti-TPM language and that Debian's parallel distribution proposal does not solve the problem, because downstream recipients could not exercise the freedom to replace works with modified versions on TPM-only platforms without the cooperation of the TPM platform vendor.

However, I do think that applying TPM in private should be allowed: People should be able to mash works however they like in private and private copies don't affect downstream freedom. Also, I think the anti-TPM provision is important enough that prospective licensees should be told about it in the "Commons Deed".

So I disagree with Debian and agree with the August 9 draft anti-TPM language.

P.S. Not having anti-TPM language in CC-by but having it in CC-by-sa would lead to an uncomfortable situation of Debian approving only CC- by, which would put pressure on documentation writers to give up ShareAlike.

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen AT iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page