Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Markus Laire <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 9/27/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> 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?
The text that I was replying to above compares the non-TPM material
to source code, so I compare the TPM'd material to compiled code.
If you prefer: The correct way to address this is for CC to require
non-TPM form, not prohibit TPM'd forms.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct