Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:43:19 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:19:35PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:39:49 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: [...]excellent explanation!In other words, IIUC, this clause seems to try and limit the harms done by some idiotic laws. The license would *not* be *less* restrictive without this clause. Is that correct?Yes, that's correct. Without this clause, laws would still exist that would empower certain groups to collect royalties on behalf of copyright holders for certain uses of works.Good. As a consequence, I hereby state that I don't consider the Non-waivable Compulsory License Schemes clause as an issue anymore. That is to say: I am *no* longer worried by clause 3e(i) of CC-by-sa-v3.0/unported and CC-by-v3.0/unported licenses. I am still worried by absurd laws, but that's a completely different beast (we should not blame licenses for that). I am still concerned by the other CC-v3.0 issues listed in my analyses: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00124.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00105.html
I simply do not understand your problem about the anti DRM clause? I simply read "you may nat prevent someone to exercise his right" This requirement is legitimate. If the software is distributed in a unencumbered way parallel to a distribution with DRM; the the DRM does not "impose anything" and all is OK I think but even if this was not permitted I dot see a big problem. Which of the DFSG will this violate? I must say that your analysis does not convince me.
But why someone will want to do that? To put DRM and at the same time to provide someone with the possibility of bypassing them seems absurd. Could you give a /realistic/ example of a comportment that you think should be allowed and is nevertheless restricted.
Olive