[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

Francesco Poli wrote:

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:27:57 -0500 Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

[anti-DRM clause]

In terms of suggesting a textual fix, how about:

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 by those to whom they are
distributed, displayed, or performed in a manner inconsistent with
the terms of this License Agreement.

Would this clarify things?

I think it would.

Note that this would ban the distribution of DRMed versions entirely, even if a transparent copy is provided. This would not permit (for example) the distribution of a CC book in .lit format (as there is no known way to edit one), even if there was a clean copy (or even the original sourcecode) in the same archive.

Is the DRM clause intended to ensure that despite the existence of DRM, licensees can still exercise their rights, or is it intended to make CC incompatible with DRM, in an attempt to dissuade people from using it?

If the intent is the former, the clause may need revision. IMO, if the intent is the latter, this forbids certain forms of modification and is thus non-free.
Lewis Jardine

Reply to: