Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Hey Mia,

thanks a lot for posting this and doing such an excellent
summary of  
the previous discussions. i have one small question at the
moment, is  
there a deadline for the public discussion period or will it
go on as  
long as necessary?

all the best from amsterdam,
paul

On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Mia Garlick wrote:

> # Public Discussion of Version 3.0 Launched:
>
> As was mentioned a little while ago (http://lists.ibiblio.org/ 
> pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html), we are
looking to move  
> ahead with versioning the CC licenses up to version 3.0
to improve  
> the clarity of the terms of the licenses and to address
some  
> concerns of one of our first and very prominent license
adopters —  
> MIT, with their OpenCourseWare project (http://ocw.mit.edu/), and  
> to also take on board the concerns of the Debian group
about the  
> clarity of some provisions of our licenses.
>
> # New US and "generic" license
>
> Another big feature of version 3.0 is that we will be
spinning off  
> what has been called the "generic" license
to now be the US license  
> and have crafted a new "generic" license
that is based on the  
> language of international IP treaties and takes effect
according to  
> the national implementation of those treaties.  This
may only be  
> something that gets IP lawyers excited but I thought it
might be  
> good to share this draft with the community as well in
order to  
> ensure full transparency and in case people were
interested and/or  
> had any comments.
>
> # Anti-DRM language - possible parallel distribution
language
>
> Finally, there has been much discussion - preparatory
to releasing  
> these drafts to the public - about whether to amend the
CC licenses  
> to include a "parallel distribution"
amendment to the existing  
> "anti-DRM" (or more correctly an
"anti-TPM" (technological  
> protection measures)) clause of the CC licenses.  As
you probably  
> now, the existing clause of the Creative Commons
licenses states that:
>
> "You [being the licensee, not the licensor] 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."
>
> As you can see from the drafts below, version 3.0
includes  
> amendments designed to make this language clearer.  But
there are  
> some in the Debian community that feel that this
renders the CC  
> licenses inconsistent with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines  
> (http
://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) (although
the  
> group has deemed the FDL, which has similar if not
stronger "anti- 
> DRM" language in it, DFSG-free http://www.debian.org/New
s/ 
> 2006/20060316) and that if CC introduces parallel
distribution  
> language we could achieve both freedom of content and
freedom to  
> code for open and closed systems (see this discussion
for an  
> explanation of the reasoning behind allowing TPMs on
free content:  
> http:
//evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM). The
parallel  
> distribution provision essentially says that a licensee
can apply a  
> technological protection measure to content only if
they also  
> release the content in an unrestricted format.
>
> However, our international affiliates (http://creativecommons.or
g/ 
> worldwide), as well as others in our community, are
strongly  
> opposed to the introduction of this amendment for
various reasons,  
> including: (1) lack of demonstrated use cases showing a
strong need  
> among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the
existing  
> "anti-TPM" language; (2) risks of unduly
complicating the licenses  
> which defeats alot of the point of CC licenses being to
be simple  
> and easy to use and understand; and, (3) the strong
opposition to  
> technological protection measures by many in the CC
community  
> generally.
>
> Consequently, CC is currently not proposing to include
this new  
> parallel distribution language as part of version 3.0;
however,  
> because it is not clear whether the Debian community
will declare  
> the CC licenses DFSG-free without it and because it
represents an  
> interesting proposal, we felt that it was appropriate
to circulate  
> the proposal as part of the public discussions of
version 3.0.
>
> The discussion about version 3.0 will occur on this
cc-licenses list.
>
> Below are drafts of the US v 3.0 license, the new
"generic" v 3.0  
> license and the parallel distribution language.
>
> <BY-NC-SA v 3 (080806) (US).pdf>
>
> <BY-NC-SA v3 (0808060) (generic).pdf>
>
>
>
> <2ndmarkupDRMclause#2.pdf>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
e: paulwaag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Version 3.0 - Public Discussion

Thread: Version 3.0 - Public Discussion