Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:38:58 +0000 Rob Myers wrote:

> On 12/01/12 17:11, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:07:00 -0800 Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> >> (1) DRM prohibition=non-free is an old argument, didn't seem the
> >> majority opinion last times discussed. Personally, I see it as similar
> >> to copyleft or source requirements -- perceived as onerous by some,
> >> but a strategic option (ie sometimes will be effective and appropriate
> >> measure, other times not) for protecting freedom.
> > 
> > Exactly, an anti-DRM clause is similar to a strong copyleft mechanism
> > (with source availability requirement), in some respects.
> > And, like a copyleft mechanism, it *should* allow parallel distribution.
> 
> Copyleft does not allow proprietary distribution of work *received under
> copyleft*.

True, but this is not the point I was trying to make.

I was saying that, in some respects, a form encumbered by TPM is
similar to a compiled binary, while a TPM-unencumbered form is similar
to the source code.

Please note that I said "in some respects": no comparison may be 100 %
accurate...

Anyway, a copyleft mechanism with source availability requirement makes
sure that recipients are not deprived of their technical possibility to
exercise their freedom to modify the work, by making sure they are
given a chance to obtain the source.
But copyleft mechanisms do *not* forbid the distribution of pre-compiled
binaries, they just mandate that source is also made available.

In the above-described comparison, this is similar to an anti-TPM
clause that does *not* forbid *all* kinds of distribution of
TPM-encumbered copies, but just forbids those that do not also make
unencumbered forms available in parallel.


> 
> It's true that the original author can distribute the work in parallel,
> but that is outside the scope of the license.

This is not what I was trying to say: I hope what I said above may
clarify what I meant.

[...]
> > After all, a copyleft clause would be non-free, if it prohibited *any*
> > distribution of compiled (non-source) forms of the work.
> 
> Why? It's the freedom to use the software that must be protected.
> Receiving the source is a better guarantor of the freedom to do so than
> receiving a binary due to bitrot, and Gentoo-style systems automate
> compilation where that is needed.

Are you really saying that you would consider acceptable a clause that
insisted that the work can only be distributed in source form?!?

Such a clause would forbid any distribution of pre-compiled binaries.
The majority of GNU/Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
Slackware, and so forth...) provide pre-compiled packages, while making
source packages available: all these distros would to have to radically
change their package distribution infrastructure and manager(s), if
most Free Software included such a clause.

I am convinced that such a clause should be regarded as non-free
(see the Debian Free Software Guideline #2:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines).

> 
> > Widely used strong copyleft licenses *do* allow distribution of
> > non-source forms, as long as the source is made available in parallel. 
> 
> And yet they do not allow proprietary software to be created through the
> use of copyright law. So if we are comparing copyleft's handling of
> copyright to how DRM should be handled, DRM should clearly also be
> disallowed.
> 
> If we are comparing DRM to copyright, DRM is proprietization, not
> compilation.

I was comparing the anti-DRM (or anti-TPM) clause to source
availability requirement. 


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgp7mVL1y_JHa.pgp
Description: PGP signature