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

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Ben Finney concluded:

> So, if the other requirements of the GPLv3 are met, the recipient can
> redistribute on any media, even those that implement access
> restrictions.

Aha, That means my previous assertion was wrong:

> So while the [anti-TPM] method [in CC and GPLv3] is rather different,
> the end-result is exactly the same.

You assert that GPLv3 allows "parallel distribution" (thus a work
with/on DRM as long as it is also available for free"), while CC does
never allow a work on/with DRM. That is a difference indeed.

Francesco: thanks for your comments. While I generally disagree with
you, it is helpful to have an opposing voice. I'm sorry that my original
question ended in some flaming; that was not my intention.

Finally, thanks to MJ Ray. I think your opinion is a very useful
guideline for authers (and some pointers):

>  - The CC-3.0 TPM clause is confusing and may not be an anti-TPM
>  clause - see http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061115-00.html and
>  http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution and maybe even
>  http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/cc#tpmcc
>  - I'm fine with [CC licenses] being in main if the project is
>  happy to take the risk.

I appreciate this pragmatic approach.

>  - Oxygen is good.

Oh no, not for the metal parts on my bike it is.

(riding a rusty vehicle)

Reply to: