Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Diane Peters <diane AT creativecommons.org>]

I am moving this conversation over to cc-community, to give the group
wanting to debate the question of SSL and other DRM-related issues
room to engage without moderation.  I don't believe CC has ever
thought SSL to be problematic or prohibited by our licenses, however.

As for other DRM-related issues raised in this thread, we are starting
a fresh thread on cc-community on the topic of facilitating waiver of
the TPM prohibition by licensors wishing to allow licensees to apply
DRM, as we committed when publishing d2 (see d2 explanation box at
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Technical_protection_measures).
Look for that post shortly.

Diane

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM, maiki <maiki AT interi.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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



-- 
Diane M. Peters, General Counsel
Creative Commons
cell: +1 503-803-8338
skype:  peterspdx
email:diane AT creativecommons.org
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters

______________________________________

Please note: the contents of this email are not intended to be legal
advice nor should they be relied upon as, or represented to be legal
advice.  Creative Commons cannot and does not give legal advice. You
need to assess the suitability of Creative Commons tools for your
particular situation, which may include obtaining appropriate legal
advice from a licensed attorney.