On Mon, 2004-07-05 at 19:15, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> So, I'd like to write a draft summary for the 6 Creative Commons 2.0
> licenses:
So, I've started this summary,
http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.sxw
(and, yes, I'll convert it to HTML and plain text ASAP), and I've
included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
(revocation, "any other comparable authorship credit", trademark
restrictions).
I'd like to make sure that I catch anything else up-front, if possible.
One question I had was about the anti-DRM clauses in section 4a).
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 in a manner
inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.
I know that the anti-DRM clause in the GFDL was a cause of problems. I'm
worried that this loosely-phrased clause may be one, too.
As stated, it seems that distribution on a file server in a firewalled
LAN, in a shared directory on a shell server, or in a password-protected
"members area" of a Web site, would be prohibited.
Unless, of course, those distribution mechanisms are "consistent" with
the terms of the license agreement. It's not clear, though, who decides
what is consistent and what is not.
Am I sparring with ghosts here, or is this a real issue? Does the
"publicly" part of the sentence mean that it only applies to
technological restrictions on _public_ distributions of the work?
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part