Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:56:13 +0000 Rob Myers wrote:

> On 13/01/12 18:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:06:02 +0000 Rob Myers wrote:
> > 
> >> On 11/01/12 22:52, Francesco Poli wrote:
> >>> The big question is: does the clause allow a licensee to distribute a
> >>> TPM-encumbered form of the work, as long as he/she also make a clean
> >>> (unencumbered) form available in parallel? If this parallel
> >>
> >> It does not and should not. DRM is unacceptable for software and it is
> >> unacceptable for cultural works.
> > 
> > That fact that DRM is unacceptable should encourage to introduce
> > non-free restrictions to fight against it.
> 
> We haven't established that prohibiting DRM is nonfree.

I am convinced that some (excessive) forms of prohibition of DRM are
non-free restrictions.
I think that there are indeed ways to fight against DRM without
introducing non-free restrictions. But forbidding all kinds of
distribution of DRM-encumbered copies is a non-free restriction, IMHO.

I think that allowing the distribution of DRM-encumbered with the
parallel distribution of an unencumbered copy adequately fights against
DRM and protects the recipients' freedom.

> 
> However Debian appear to have established that it is free. BY-SA 3.0 was
> declared DFSG-compatible.

Yes, and I disagree with the Debian Project decision-makers on this
point.
Please remember that I am not speaking on behalf of the Debian Project.
The opinions I express here are my own and my own only.

-- 
 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: pgpkuIPC3NdYp.pgp
Description: PGP signature