cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
[cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution
- From: Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>
- To: cc-licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:19:23 +0200
Hello to everybody,
Section 3(a)(5) of CC-by-sa-v4.0draft2 states:
[...]
> (5) You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms
> on the Work. You may not restrict the ability of a recipient of
> the Work from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient
> by the terms of this Public License, including through the
> imposition of any effective technological measures.
[...]
The last part is the infamous anti-DRM (or anti-TPM, if you prefer)
clause, probably the most controversial part of CC-v3.0 licenses.
Again, it does not seem to have changed significantly.
As I said previously [1], I strongly recommend that this clause be
enhanced, so that it *explicitly* allows parallel distribution.
[1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-January/006582.html
I hope this suggestion may be implemented in the next draft.
As was pointed out [2] by Anthony "osm", it's strange "that CC would
take such a hard line against DRM, while at the same time providing the
unquestionably non-free NC licenses."
[2] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-April/006835.html
Moreover, CC currently takes this hard line against DRM (through an
anti-DRM clause that I consider non-free), but, at the same time, *no*
CC license (not even CC-by-sa!) requires source availability.
I think this is very awkward: you *can* distribute CC-by-sa-licensed
material in a format that hampers modifications (while keeping your
preferred form for modification for yourself), but you *cannot*
absolutely apply even the weakest form of DRM, not even if you make
DRM-unencumbered copies available in parallel!
I acknowledge that DRM is worse than source secrecy, but anyway,
what I described above looks like a sort of self-contradiction...
--
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:
pgpUvl4aRB2ZE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Francesco Poli, 08/09/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution, Rob Myers, 08/09/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Anthony, 08/09/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Gregory Maxwell, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Anthony, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Gregory Maxwell, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Anthony, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
P. J. McDermott, 08/10/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution, Anthony, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Kent Mewhort, 08/10/2012
- Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution, Anthony, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
P. J. McDermott, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Anthony, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Gregory Maxwell, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Anthony, 08/10/2012
-
Re: [cc-licenses] TPM: please explicitly allow parallel distribution,
Gregory Maxwell, 08/10/2012
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.