Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Luis Villa <luis AT tieguy.org> wrote:
> 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?

Merely that we want CC BY and BY-SA 4.0 to be considered free licenses
under that definition.

> 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.

Of course. I was only pointing out, perhaps too obliquely, that, as
above, we want CC BY and BY-SA 4.0 to be considered free licenses per
freedomdefined.org, and any proposed change should be vetted against
that. As an example, IF a strong proposal were to come forth for
adding a requirement to use free file formats (such a proposal would
not be coming from me; though I strongly favor free formats, I highly
doubt the CC licenses are the optimal place to mandate that), one of
the hoops it would have to pass through would be not making BY and
BY-SA nonfree, ie would have to be within a permissible (which is a
MAY, not even a SHOULD as far as freedomdefined.org is concerned with
license conditions) restriction.

> 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)).

Yep.

Mike