Re: Anti-TPM clauses
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> ITYM "Francesco Poli won't stop crapflooding debian-legal with his
> dissenting view about the freeness of CC by-SA 3.0, making it ever harder to
> find relevant posts like
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00262.html> and
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/08/msg00120.html> that show
> there's no compelling reason to interpret CC by-SA 3.0 as non-free,
> *unfortunately*".
ITYM "I'm now posting ad-hominem attacks". OK, Francesco Poli could
post a bit shorter and mainly link back to old posts by him and others
on this, but mentioning the dissent isn't itself harmful.
FWIW, my TPM position(s):
- Anti-TPM clauses break the DFSG.
- GPLv3 is a this-is-not-a-TPM-legally clause instead, so is fine.
- The CC-3.0 TPM clause is confusing and may not be an anti-TPM
clause - see http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061115-00.html and
http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution and maybe even
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/cc#tpmcc
- CC point-blank refuse to answer questions, which makes me suspicious
and so I recommend avoiding their licences for that reason. I'm fine
with them being in main if the project is happy to take the risk.
- the FDL GR is irrational, but valid.
- I want to see a right of 'fair circumvention' in copyright laws.
- Oxygen is good.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: