Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
- From: "Markus Laire" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 19:51:31 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20060927151449.37843F65A8@nail.towers.org.uk>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060925084737.CF3B8F6563@nail.towers.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20060926084234.8F440F6560@nail.towers.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060926233011.GD27592@leftleftupup.com> <email@example.com> <AE1800D4-5F40-4590-962C-9E473A9B6BC7@iki.fi> <20060927151449.37843F65A8@nail.towers.org.uk>
On 9/27/06, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Since the CC licenses don't require distribution of the preferred
> form for making modification aka. source code, it is essential that
> downstream recipient can extract works for modification and
> redistribution without violating any law that protects TPM. I think
> that it makes sense for CC licenses to have anti-TPM language and I
> don't think that anti-TPM language should make a license non-free.
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.
I don't understand this. How CC probihits compiled code?