Re: Creative Commons 3.0 Public draft -- news and questions
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
>
> Creative Commons has announced the public draft of the next version of
> their license suite:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/6017
>
> Big question
> ------------
>
> The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
>
> Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a
> parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the
> DFSG?
>
>
> In my personal opinion, the question boils down to these points:
>
> 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of
> our principles?
IMO, it should be considered as a clarification. In GR 2006-01, there is
nothing to imply itself as an exception.
> 2. If it was a clarification, does this mean that anti-DRM clauses
> like the one in the FDL are compatible with the DFSG?
Rather difficult to answer.
Since FDL without unmodified sections is considered compatible with the
DFSG, it's reasonable to conclude that anti-DRM clauses, part of FDL,
are compatible with the DFSG.
However, Choice 2, the winner of GR 2006-01, doesn't mention anti-DRM
clauses. It does says "we also consider that works licensed under the
GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do
fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.",
while it also says "Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not
free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections".
IMO, the statement of Choice 2 is not very clear. At least, the
statement of Choice 2 is very simple, compared with Choice 1 or Choice
3. Specially, it doesn't mention anything about anti-DRM, while both
Choice 1 and Choice 3 give explicit arguments.
> 3. If so, is the anti-DRM clause in the CCPL 3.0 draft similar
> enough to the FDL's anti-DRM clause for us to consider it
> compatible with the DFSG?
If we consider FDL's anti-DRM clause compatible with the DFSG, CC's
should also be compatible. In fact, FDL goes further than CC 3.0. FDL
even restrict your right to *make* a copy on DRM media.
My personal opinion is that though we should always respect the DFSG,
it's better to explain the DFSG in a looser way. Personally I think
anti-DRM in the FDL's way is against DFSG. But if the whole Debian
community do agree with me, it may be a disaster. CCPL 3.0 is not
compatible, GPL v3.0 may also not be compatible. Then Debian will
encounter many difficulties in using a lot of valuable and important,
sometimes even essential, works.
Explaining the DFSG in a looser way may be considered as a necessary
strategy. FSF tends to say that LGPL is a strategy.(It's not a accurate
comparison.)
Reply to: