Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
>Indeed. Sadly, CC's anti-TPM language may(*)
>prohibit iSuck owners
>applying TPM themselves, as the copy would violate
>the licence and the
>anti-TPM measure is not limited to distribution. (*
> it's not entirely
>clear to me, due to the recent comments and refusal
Isn't this a case of fair use?
>Should we accept as free software a program under a
>licence which does
>not allow licensees to distribute compiled files?
>The correct way to fix this is for CC to require
>source code, not
>prohibit compiled code.
Think about GPL scripts. The source code is the
compiled code. So you must distribute them in that
form, no compiled ones.
And CC usually applies to images and audios.
For images, the source may be an .xcf (created by
gimp) file. It is usually very large. Other users
can merge all layers first and adjust hue/brightness
because it is more easily (to adjust all layers, merge
is the easist way) and finally saved it to an PNG file
(single layer). Do he need to distribute with .xcf
For png file, it can be a modifiable format.
So for most artists uses CC, they could agree you
distribute that PNG file. They may care their
work is derivable or not. Not the original or
specific format. But if it is encrypted then
it is not a modifiable format. And most of us cannot
Same on audio files, singers sing songs and saved
them to a WAV file. DJ can mix some WAV files and
saved them into MP3/OGG file. Should that DJ
the source (wav) files? Since MP3/OGG files are
still modifiable, so it can be considered a source.
But if they are encrypted by WMA with DRM, then it's
not. And most of us cannot agree.
I don't think anti-TPM clause is non-free because
audio/images are not as same as programs.
They don't have source codes. Or, some different
formats can be considered as a source (lossy
compressed formats), but some formats cannot (DRM).
您的生活即時通 － 溝通、娛樂、生活、工作一次搞定！