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

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

On Friday, March 01, 2013 08:19:44 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:
> > Here are the clauses about DRMs in versions 2.5 and 3.0 of the CC-BY
> > licenses respectively.
> > 
> >     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.
> There were similar worries over some drafts of the anti-DRM provisions in
> the GFDL.
> 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.

Doesn't AGPL suffer from this exact problem (use restrictions when not 
distributing code)?

Scott K

Reply to: