Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi!
> Did anyone read Creative Commons response to comments on CC-v3 draft(s)?
>
> A PDF file was sent to the cc-licenses mailing list and can be found
> here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html
Easier to find:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060908/da9db6a3/attachment-0001.pdf
> The first comment is quoted below:
>
> | One question that's come from Debian members is whether the anti-TPM
> | wording in the 3.0 draft would, as it stands, allow parallel
> | distribution. The draft says:
> |
> | /You may not impose any technological measures on the Work that
> | restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to exercise
> | the rights granted to them under the License./
> |
> | It could be argued that TPM applied to a Work, distributed with a
> | "cleartext" copy or with such a copy available from the licensee, does
> | not restrict the ability of the recipient to exercise their rights.
>
> And the response is:
>
> | This argument can certainly be made. CC does not feel that it, as
> | license steward, should opine on the likelihood with which a court in
> | any jurisdiction would uphold this argument if the issue were
> | litigated.
Note that they made no counterarguments. In other words, the argument is
correct as far as CC knows, but they don't want to act as lawyers without
a license.
Worse, the PDF description of the parallel distribution amendment appears
to describe an amendment which is less restrictive than necessary for
Debian's purposes (see comment 11). (Proper parallel distribution requires
the unencumbered to be distributed to every recipient of the encumbered:
though not technically "with" the encumbered, it's effectively the same,
and that's not mentioned in the response.) Given this (mis)interpretation,
I would probably oppose such an amendment too. :-/
> Hence, it seems that CC refuses to disclose the intended meaning of the
> clause...
> Is this a dead end? Have we to wait for a court case before we can
> decide if (some) CC-v3 licenses meet the DFSG?!?
> This is really frustrating... :-(
I think the plaintext meaning should be assumed unless the licensor
specifies otherwise (reference UW-Pine case), and we know that the
plaintext meaning allows "parallel distribution". (Of course, if there
is a court case, we'd have to defer to that, but until there is, I'd
go by the plain meaning.)
In other words, I think CC-v3 is OK unless the licensor indicates a
"strange interpretation".
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Reply to: