Development of Creative Commons licenses

[maiki <maiki AT interi.org>]

On 08/13/2012 04:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 2012 4:54 PM, "drew Roberts" <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
>>> Party 1 send an unprotected file to party 2 via https or scp. It goes
>>> in one end unprotected and comes out the other end the same way. The
>>> protection is against third party snooping on the transfer, it does not
>>> make it so that party 2 has reduced abilities with respect to party 1
>>> because of the use of https or sc
>>
>> Well said
> 
> Oversimplified, though.  We don't know what abilities party 2 has
> until we know what control s/he has over the receiving computer.  If
> the receiving computer doesn't let party 2 access the unprotected
> file, then presumably the CC license has been violated.


It is not oversimplified, it is what it is. The scenario you describe is
not dependent on in-band encryption; a file could be transferred via
HTTP or telnet and the device may still have an implemented interface
that disallows the kind of access you are talking about.

Please note that I am not commenting on the TPM clauses in CC, rather, I
just want to get past this misunderstanding about how SSL works. For all
practical reasons, SSL is not used to restrict use, merely to protect
privacy in communications.

It should always be considered if we are shutting down a valid
discussion, but I personally find this topic distracting, because there
may be concerns that are glazed over while focusing on the technical
specifics that have nothing to do with the issue. I propose we move on,
if for no other reason than no one has ever brought this up, while the
v3 license family has been in circulation for quite a while; surely this
would have been exposed before now if anyone thought it was an issue.

maiki