Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Javier Candeira <javier AT candeira.com>]

Terry Hancock wrote:
> To be fair though, we are actually white-washing the current situation
> between CC and Debian. The fact is that the jury is still out on whether
> CC's concessions to the DFSG are adequate to satisfy Debian.



> The CC attribution requirements were regarded as too stringent for DFSG,
> and CC has softened these slightly to satisfy Debian. I believe this has
> been a complete success. However...
> 
> There is a group of people within Debian (I regard them as a small
> minority, and don't think they will sway the consensus of the whole
> organization -- but it's never possible to say that with surety until
> there is a vote) who are both highly hostile to the Creative Commons
> organization and stuck on what I consider a highly broken interpretation
> of how the DFSG terms apply with regard to "Technological Protection
> Measures" (TPM) a.k.a. "Digital Rights/Restrictions Management" (DRM).
> 
> They insist that DFSG requires the right to distribute works in an
> obfuscated/cryptographically-locked format that permits the creation of
> sequestered "platform monopolies", allowing derivative content to be
> locked away from general distribution. They base this on the claim that
> disallowing such distribution is a "use restriction".

Can you point us to the recent relevant discussions?

Would that requirement also make GPL v3 non-DFSG compliant?

> Fortunately, Debian has already approved the GNU Free Documentation
> License (GFDL) which has an even stickier "in clear" distribution
> requirement, so it would seem totally inconsistent for them to decide
> against CC. 

Let's hope for consistency.

-- j