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

Re: About the statement about Debian and the CC licenses on Wikipedia.

Le Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 08:19:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> >     You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or
> >     publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures
> >     that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with
> >     the terms of this License Agreement.
> Notice that this says you may not use any technological measures that
> control access while you're publicly displaying or performing the work
> *regardless of whether you're distributing it*.  In other words, this
> wording, on its face, restricts how you *use* the work in your own
> environment, provided that's "public" in some sense, even if you're not
> redistributing it.
> The new wording avoids this problem:
> >     When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work, 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.
> ...by explicitly limiting the requirement to the context of conveying the
> work to a third party and saying that you can't limit their usage, which
> is what was really intended.
> It also avoids other edge cases, such as when you might introduce DRM for
> some technical reason but simultaneously convey a non-DRM version of the
> work.  For example, suppose that you want to use it on a device that
> *requires* everything be controlled with DRM.  The previous wording would
> prevent you from ever making the work available on that device; the
> current wording allows you to do that as long as you *also* provide the
> recipient with the necessary pieces that they aren't restricted by the
> restrictions of that device for other uses.

Hi Russ and FTP team,

I am not so convinced by the arguments, but if I get the confirmation from the
FTP team that the above is the exact reason why versions inferior to 2.5 are
not suitable for Debian, then I volunteer to update the Wikipedia page.

Here is what leaves me unconvinced.

1) A public performance or display is a redistribution of the work.  If a text
is licensed under CC-BY-2.5, and if one publically speaks it, then others may
record or memorise it.  I see this as a distribution and I think that this is
the intent of this license, which does not mention anything about private use.
Therefore I think that it does not disallow the use of DRMs when the work
is only redistributed privately.

2) From http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3#DRM, it looks like the intent
of CC 3.0 is to prohibit as as much as CC 2.5 did the "parallel distribution"
of a work controlled with DRM and a receipe to evade the DRM (even if this
receipe is as simple of giving an URL to an unrestricted version).  Conversely,
if we do not take Creative Commons' intentions into account, but only focus on
the license texts, then I think that for both version 2.5 and 3.0 it is
also possible to argue that they allow parallel distribution.  Altogether I
think that the difference between 2.5 and 3.0 is not clear on that matter.



Reply to: