Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

I just wanted to echo what Francesco said.  Especially when combined
with the new termination clause, this puts CC licenses into the "try
to avoid using" category.  I now know the DRM clause was already
there, but I didn't realize it before reading the draft of 4.0.

It's still not clear to me why permission to circumvent is not
sufficient.  Under US law "to ‘circumvent a technological measure’
means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or
otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a
technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner"

The phrase "without the authority of the copyright owner" is right
there in the statute.  I'd like for the CC lawyers to address this
aspect in particular and explain why permission to circumvent would
not work.

If this is only a problem in non-US law, then I would ask that the US
juridiction-specific license utilize permission to circumvent.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>