Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Kim Tucker <kctucker AT gmail.com>]

> 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)).

Thanks Luis. I have made a note to address that:
http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Libre_Puro_License

K

On 11 December 2011 22:20, 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?
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses