On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:13:46 +0100 Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> >
> > [anti-DRM clause]
> >
> >>In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:
> >>
> >> You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> >> publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
> >> that control access or use of the Work by those to whom they are
> >> distributed, displayed, or performed in a manner inconsistent with
> >> the terms of this License Agreement.
> >>
> >>Would this clarify things?
> >
> >
> > I think it would.
> >
>
> Note that this would ban the distribution of DRMed versions entirely,
> even if a transparent copy is provided. This would not permit (for
> example) the distribution of a CC book in .lit format (as there is no
> known way to edit one), even if there was a clean copy (or even the
> original sourcecode) in the same archive.
You are right.
Actually, while commenting Benjamin's proposed fix, I was (wrongly)
considering it as if the "unless..." part was there.
But it wasn't.
Maybe this is better:
| You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
| publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
| that control access or use of the Work by those to whom they are
| distributed, displayed, or performed in a manner inconsistent with the
| terms of this License Agreement, unless you also simultaneously
| distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally
| perform the Work to the same recipients without such measures.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpOvgZlrQWAc.pgp
Description: PGP signature