Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Scripsit Evan Prodromou <evan@bad.dynu.ca>
> On Sat, 2005-19-03 at 21:07 +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> I'm not happy about this replacement either. It seems to say that if I
>> distribute the Work on a LAN behind a firewall I must also distribute
>> the Work once again to the same recipient, but this time on a
>> non-firewalled LAN.
> I think you're slightly conflating recommendations 3 (allow
> access-controlled private distribution) and 4 (Allow distribution of
> rights-restricted copies of works if unrestricted copies are also made
> available). Only for 4 is there any recommended license text.
However, your proposed text for 4 still disallowed access-controlled
privated distribution.
> Maybe this, for a start?
> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
> measures *that prevent the recipient from exercising the rights
> granted to them by section 8a and section 3 of this License,
> unless you also distribute, publicly display, publicly perform
> or publicly digitally perform the Work for the same recipient
> without those measures.*
Still not happy. It should be possible for me to burn the contents of
my home directory onto an encrypted DVD and give it to somebody for
safekeeping (possibly accompanied with the key in a sealed envelope to
be used in case of my death). If the licence for some work prevents me
from having the work in my home directory when doing this, I hold it
to be non-free.
> I find the whole anti-DRM part kinda self-defeating and wrongheaded.
Fully seconded.
--
Henning Makholm "Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit."
Reply to: