Re: Against DRM 1.0
Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote: Even so it is not clear which legal effect an assertion that "[the] license is incompatible with it" has. Never legal effect - imho - because the license is inapplicable: licensor cannot apply the license to his work. What the author of the license probably _meant_ to say is that the license does not authorize the creation of copies on DRM media. http://www.freecreations.org/faq.html "The second clause prevents the use of DRM to protect the work: if licensor uses DRM, the license is not applicable to the work; if licensee uses DRM, license is automatically void." From "definitions": "Work: the copyrightable work released under the terms and the conditions of this license." (It also seems strange to explicitly exclude DRM when there is no
general copyleft mechanism in the license. It appears to be allowed to incorporate the licensed contents in proprietary works, just as long as the distribution of the proprietary work does not use DRM. Strange). The license is copyleft... :-) It's a clear license, imho. Max
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
Reply to: