Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Two Part ParDist is same as AntiTPM

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Two Part ParDist is same as AntiTPM
  • Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 00:25:13 -0500 (EST)


> On Saturday 02 December 2006 08:33 pm, Greg London wrote:
>> > On Saturday 02 December 2006 07:56 pm, Greg London wrote:
>> >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004634.html
>> >>
>> >> >Use of DRM on a redistributed CC work is okay ONLY IF:
>> >> >1) The work is also made available in an unDRMed parallel version,
>> and
>> >> >2) Everyone is free to apply the DRM.


>> I don't understand how this is any different than
>> the current anti-tpm clause which allows local DRM.
>> If folks are agreeable to the above then why are
>> they in an uproar over the current anti-TPM clause.
>>
>> They are almost identical.
>
> Do you need to understand it if it is acceptable to them?

I'd like to understand why folks object to
Anti-TPM plus local DRM
but would agree to
parallel-distribution plus pre-authorization-to-apply-DRM

Because I see only a subtle difference between the two.
And that means either I'm not understanding something
or they're not understanding something
or something more weird.

> Do you object?

Simply on the grounds that its near identical to the proposal
but would require a full review cycle, again.

> Can it hurt?

That I don't know. I haven't considered this particular
flavor, because today is the first day I've heard it
proposed. I'd have to ponder it a bit to see if there
are any weaknesses in the system before I'd say.

And I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of going
through yet another alternative, especially if CC
isn't going to change, which I wouldn't think they
would because it seems like a minor difference, but
the language of the license would have to be completely
rewritten and one wrong word could pooch it.

I mean, seriously, there was a lot of wrangling going on
just to modify the license to remove one word so that
the DRM requirement only applies to distributed works.

My question to the ParDist-Plus-DRM-Authorization folks is

do you realize how close this is already implemented
in ANTI-TPM-plus-Local-DRM?

Greg
--
Take the Courage Vow
http://www.couragevow.com/
Pass it on.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page