Re: Anti-TPM clauses
Ben Finney concluded:
> So, if the other requirements of the GPLv3 are met, the recipient can
> redistribute on any media, even those that implement access
> restrictions.
Aha, That means my previous assertion was wrong:
> So while the [anti-TPM] method [in CC and GPLv3] is rather different,
> the end-result is exactly the same.
You assert that GPLv3 allows "parallel distribution" (thus a work
with/on DRM as long as it is also available for free"), while CC does
never allow a work on/with DRM. That is a difference indeed.
Francesco: thanks for your comments. While I generally disagree with
you, it is helpful to have an opposing voice. I'm sorry that my original
question ended in some flaming; that was not my intention.
Finally, thanks to MJ Ray. I think your opinion is a very useful
guideline for authers (and some pointers):
> - 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
> - I'm fine with [CC licenses] being in main if the project is
> happy to take the risk.
I appreciate this pragmatic approach.
> - Oxygen is good.
Oh no, not for the metal parts on my bike it is.
Regards,
Freek
(riding a rusty vehicle)
Reply to: