Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Luis Villa <luis AT tieguy.org>]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> 
wrote:
> You're right, this would be a bug in Libre Puro. One can quibble with
> it, but 
> http://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions#Protection_of_freedoms
> is part of the definition of freedom we've agreed to stick with at
> least for BY-SA, and it carefully says "For digital files..."

Mike, could you expand on the expected interaction between
freedomdefined and CC 4?

With regards to this specific issue, my read of freedomdefined.org is
that the file format discussion in freedomdefined is a SHOULD, not a
MUST[1]. Furthermore, CC 1-3 don't require use of
multi-vendor/non-encumbered file formats.

Note that use of a non-free file format is not an effective
technological measure, at least as that phrase is usually interpreted
in the context of the WIPO treaties (as required by CC BY 3.0 8(f)).

Luis

[1] see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt