[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Freek Dijkstra <debian2007@macfreek.nl> writes:

> Relevant part, in article 4a of
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> > You may not impose any effective technological measures on the
> > Work that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You
> > to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms
> > of the License.
> There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on it
> (similar to 2006_001),

Note that votes like 2006-001 can only change what the Debian project
will or will not do. Voting can't retroactively make a given set of
license terms on a work free or non-free, any more than voting can
change the value of pi.

> it's probably non-free, and best not put it in main. Correct?

That's my understanding, yes. Largely on the basis that it's imposing
a non-free restriction ("You may not ...") on the recipient.

> However, as a total non-lawyer type, I am confused about either the
> similarity or difference in another well-know anti-TDM clause:
> Relevant part, in article 3 of
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
> > No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
> > measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under
> > article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December
> > 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of
> > such measures.
> Could someone please decypher this legal mumbo-jumbo (I can barely
> read the CC, but have a harder time reading this text!) and tell me
> how this is different from the creative commons anti-TPM clause.

The main difference is that there's no "you may not" or "you must".

It is instead a declaration: the licensor, by choosing these license
terms for a work, states explicitly that the work isn't an "effective
technological measure" under copyright law. The intent is that this in
effect prevents certain restrictive laws from applying to recipients
of the work.

> What is the correct conclusion:
> [...]
> 3. This is clearly totally different. The difference is ....

The difference is: one is a restriction, the other is not.

 \     "Yesterday I parked my car in a tow-away zone. When I came back |
  `\                   the entire area was missing."  -- Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: