On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:46 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote: [...] > Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wait, wait: if the TPM are based on public key cryptography, you > > could have the necessary key for applying them, but not the key > > that's needed to pull them off. In that case, when you receive an > > "All Rights Reserved" work with TPM, d[R], you cannot get R back > > and share it with your friends or modify it in any way. You can > > only use d[R] on Dave's platform (perhaps for a limited number of > > times or for a limited timeframe). On the other hand, when you > > receive d[A] along with A (parallel distribution) under the > > CC-by-sa-v3.x, you can exercise all the rights granted by the > > license on A and re-apply the TPM to A (or A') in order to use it > > on Dave's platform. > > > > I think that TPM with a published encoding key are still effective > > TPM (as long as the decoding key are held secret). > > So, are you asserting that if the CCPL3.0 included an allowance to > distribute TPM'd files, so long as the key necessary to apply TPM to > modified works based on the non-TPM'd version were publically > available (or always available as part of the non-TPM'd distribution)? Am I asserting that if $LONG_SENTENCE, then what? I'm not sure I understand your question, since something seems to be missing in it... :-/ > > If so, I'm not sure you're wrong, but you are being inconsistent. > > What is the basis for Debian's objection to the anti-TPM clause? Isn't > it that it is considered to be "discriminatory" against "person or > fields of use" because it (supposedly [1]) discriminates against users > of TPM systems? AFAICT, the objection is that an anti-TPM clause (such that it forbids any TPM in any case) forbids porting to some platforms. I think that no such porting should be disallowed, as long as it can be done without denying recipients the ability to exercise the rights granted by the license. Likewise, a clause that forbade porting the work to Windows systems would be considered non-free. [...] > You see, I think the thing you might be missing here is that the > creator of the work has no control over whether the TPM key might or > might not be available: it is a property of the platform, just like > the platform being TPM-only. I am well aware of this. Just as the presence of a third-party software patent that covers a piece of software is not under control of its author. [...] > So the point is, no end-user freedom is gained by your proposal: > either proposal allows the end user to install content on TPM-only > platforms for which a TPM encryption key is publically available and > denies it on platforms for which it is not. In fact, the only thing > it gains is increased complexity of the license. The end-user freedom that is added (with respect to the no-TPM-ever clause) is the ability of having the TPM applied by someone else (in the cases where anybody can do that), rather than being compelled to do it yourself. In a world where many users are scared to death at the sole idea of installing a software package (that doesn't come preinstalled with the computer they bought), I think that the above-mentioned end-user freedom should not be seen as negligible... -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpeT9PmZn4eB.pgp
Description: PGP signature