Re: Creative Commons license draft summary
On 2004-07-06 20:15:25 +0100 Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:
included the three main arguments why Attribution 2.0 is non-free
At least in this context, we should say instead that software released
under it alone will not be free software. It usually doesn't make
sense to say a licence is free or non-free in abstract, as I have
noticed in the past. The copyright holder can grant extra permissions
or not.
(revocation, "any other comparable authorship credit", trademark
restrictions).
As keeps getting claimed in cc-licenses, the trademark restrictions
usually included as the end of a CC licence are not supposed to be
part of the licence. They have been unwilling to fix the obviously
misleading "legal code" page to date, so it does seem to get included
in some uses. So, this is a user problem not helped by CC's
distribution, rather than a problem of the licence itself.
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.
Looks like a lawyerbomb to me. Without more information on its
meaning, I wouldn't say anything other than "could be clearer" unless
pushed. If pushed, I'd probably say that software covered by this term
isn't free software.
Am I sparring with ghosts here, or is this a real issue?
It's real that I'd like more explanation. ;-)
Does the
"publicly" part of the sentence mean that it only applies to
technological restrictions on _public_ distributions of the work?
No, it seems to apply to any distribution. On that level, this looks
it could be a practical problem for any private debian mirrors.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"To be English is not to be baneful / To be standing by
the flag not feeling shameful / Racist or partial..."
(Morrissey)
Reply to: