Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Debian and Creative Commons

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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] Debian and Creative Commons
  • Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:47:59 -0500

Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Oct 13, 2006, at 14:39, Clive Menzies wrote:
> So is the Debian objection based on allowing DRM locally?

This definitely *was* an issue for some people, but it appears that it was always a misunderstanding: the earlier versions of CC licenses apparently allowed application of DRM by the end user (though possibly only because of the 'fair use' clause). Anyway, the 3.0 language is quite a bit clearer on this point -- local DRM application is unquestionably allowed now.

IMHO, this is all that is necessary, because any "free DRM" (i.e. DRM with a publically available encryption key and encryption tool) presents no problem for the user, and "non-free DRM" (tool or key is not freely available) is a copyleft-breaker (whether or not parallel distribution of non-DRM form is provided). What little hassle remains in supporting DRM platforms should be regarded as a property of those platforms, not the free-licensed content that insists on transparent distribution.

My understanding is that the remaining one issue that Debian has is
that Debian wants both CC-by 3.0 and CC-by-sa 3.0 to allow the
distribution of copies that have TPM applied to them if the
distributor also distributes a non-TPMed version for another
platform. (The non-TPMed version will in practice be for another
platform, because if the platform for which the TPMed version was
targeted didn't require TPM, there'd be no need to apply TPM.)

I disagree with Debian on this point. I very much appreciate Debian's
effort in getting the other issues Debian had addressed.

I guess you probably meant "Creative Commons' effort"? But anyway, kudos to both.

(Note that discriminating against platforms that are designed to
subvert the freedoms that a license provides is not discrimination
against particular people or fields of endeavor unless you count
license subversion as a field of endeavor or think that copyleft
licenses should not discriminate against people who have a moral
conviction against copyleft as an inherent trait of their persona.)

Thanks for an extremely concise and readable summary!

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page