Version 3.0 - Remove the TPM-ban

I suggest replacing 'restrict' in each TPM-ban clause with
'have the intent or effect of restricting'.

This language is already used in CC licensing (Scotland) and
it is 
believed to permit copying to TPM media/format along with a
non-TPM 
at-least-as-good copy.


It is clearly troublesome for a licence to start restricting
what things 
to which works may be copied.  If format-ban clauses become
common, it 
will obviously limit various uses and remixes.  Such things
should not 
be in the most permissive CC licence.

This suggested wording is slightly more complicated than the
current 
draft, but less complicated than spelling out parallel
distribution like 
in the alternate draft.  Even so, I do not think that
complexity alone 
should prevent the change: if CC wanted the generic to be
less complex, 
3.0 should have been based more on the plain and simple
language of CC 
Scotland, but I appreciate the need for having something
more easily 
comparable with the generic 2.5.

Also, I believe you should not wait until this bug bites
before looking 
to fix it, or expect licensees to get exceptions in each
case.  This 
suggestion is not preemptive compliance - it's trying to
avoid making 
unnecessary work for others.  Let's find the solution in
the generic 
licence, if we can.


If there is no general agreement to allow non-restricting
TPM in 
general, the TPM-ban clauses should be made optional.  CC
seems to have 
refused to take a position on numerous controversies in the
past (such 
as Share Alike), so if there is disagreement, it should
refuse to take a 
position on whether TPM media may be used and leave it to
each licensor.

Finally, please can someone tell us where to find the record
of the 
rejections by international affiliates and how the CC
decision-making 
works?  I've had a bit of a search of creativecommons.org
but haven't 
found details.  I thank the cc-nl lead for explaining his
motives here, 
but I'm only guessing about the others.

Thanks in advance for any help,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.o
rg/~mjr/
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Quoting MJ Ray <mjrphonecoop.coop>:

> I suggest replacing 'restrict' in each TPM-ban clause
with
> 'have the intent or effect of restricting'.
>
> This language is already used in CC licensing
(Scotland) and it is 
> believed to permit copying to TPM media/format along
with a non-TPM 
> at-least-as-good copy.

Do you have a link for the discussion document for that?
It's interesting but
I'm not sure I understand the difference in wording.

Would the at-least-as-good version have to be distributed
bundled with the
DRM-ed one, or could it be made available separately? This
might have
implications for streaming media.

> If format-ban clauses become common, it
> will obviously limit various uses and remixes.

A Microsoft content license that locks content to Office
formats (for example)
would obviously be very bad. But DRM is not a format, it can
easily be used
inside other existing formats. And support for DRM will
prevent many more uses
and remixes; this is the basic sales pitch for DRM.

> Such things should not
> be in the most permissive CC licence.

Possibly. The only right reserved when BY work is used is
the right of
attribution. But you do need to be able to distribute
untransformed versions.

> If there is no general agreement to allow
non-restricting TPM in
> general, the TPM-ban clauses should be made optional.

What in particular do you mean by non-restricting TPM? Like
locking 
something to
an iPod?

The Scottish language and circumvention might be a good
combination for 
handling
DRM. This would make it basically irrelevent rather than
opposing or 
supporting
it.

- Rob.

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

On 8/15/06, MJ Ray <mjrphonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Such things should not
> be in the most permissive CC licence.

That would seem right.

I think the TPM and DRM clauses are only needed
in the ShareAlike license, since that's the only license
that is intended to protect a project from proprietary
forking and other gambits.

And the idea is to prevent DRM or other TPM from
being used to take a work or its derivative private.

---
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerigh
tsreserved.org
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On 15 Aug 2006, at 19:40, Greg bond wrote:

> I think the TPM and DRM clauses are only needed
> in the ShareAlike license, since that's the only
license
> that is intended to protect a project from proprietary
> forking and other gambits.

The CC licenses all allow noncommercial distribution of
unmodified  
works. DRM can be used to prevent this. But BY and BY-NC
derivatives  
should probably allow DRM, otherwise they are reserving more
rights  
than they claim to.

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

On 8/16/06, Rob Myers <robrobmyers.org> wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006, at 19:40, Greg bond wrote:
>
> > I think the TPM and DRM clauses are only needed
> > in the ShareAlike license, since that's the only
license
> > that is intended to protect a project from
proprietary
> > forking and other gambits.
>
> The CC licenses all allow noncommercial distribution of
unmodified
> works. DRM can be used to prevent this. But BY and
BY-NC derivatives
> should probably allow DRM, otherwise they are reserving
more rights
> than they claim to.

But all licenses other than ShareAlike allow
a work to be put under a more restrictive license.
You could concievably roll the work into an
All Rights Reserved license as long as you don't
violate the original license yourself.

And only ShareAlike and CC-BY are Gift Economy
licenses. All other licenses are really Market Economy
licences, and I'm not so concerned about protecting
someone's FreeSamples stuff as I am concerned
about protecting some group's FLOSS project.

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

rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop>:
> > I suggest replacing 'restrict' in each TPM-ban
clause with
> > 'have the intent or effect of restricting'.
> >
> > This language is already used in CC licensing
(Scotland) and it is 
> > believed to permit copying to TPM media/format
along with a non-TPM 
> > at-least-as-good copy.
> 
> Do you have a link for the discussion document for
that? It's interesting but
> I'm not sure I understand the difference in wording.

It's in the comments on 2.1.d in the draft at 
http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/cc/cc_sco_licence.html

> Would the at-least-as-good version have to be
distributed bundled with the
> DRM-ed one, or could it be made available separately?
This might have
> implications for streaming media.

I think it should be bundled, but I don't know the expert
opinion on 
that.  I think that would make streaming TPM-d media more
expensive
and that's entirely just.

> > If format-ban clauses become common, it
> > will obviously limit various uses and remixes.
> 
> A Microsoft content license that locks content to
Office formats (for example)
> would obviously be very bad. But DRM is not a format,
it can easily be used
> inside other existing formats. And support for DRM will
prevent many more uses
> and remixes; this is the basic sales pitch for DRM.

TPM is a whole class of formats.  How is it different to say

TPM-extended formats from Office-extended formats?   You
don't have 
to use the Office extensions, of course, but why should the
licence
forbid you from doing so?

Anyway, I'm not asking for support for TPM.  I'm asking
for permission 
only when the use is redundant.

> > Such things should not
> > be in the most permissive CC licence.
> 
> Possibly. The only right reserved when BY work is used
is the right of
> attribution. But you do need to be able to distribute
untransformed versions.

Agreed.

> > If there is no general agreement to allow
non-restricting TPM in
> > general, the TPM-ban clauses should be made
optional.
> 
> What in particular do you mean by non-restricting TPM?
Like locking 
> something to an iPod?

Maybe.  I'm not familiar with iPod locking.

> The Scottish language and circumvention might be a good
combination for 
> handling
> DRM. This would make it basically irrelevent rather
than opposing or 
> supporting it.

Yes, I'd love to make DRM irrelevant.  DRM can be used to
pervert many 
things.  It would be nice to at least have the option of
getting our own 
back on DRM supporters.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see http://mjr.towers
.org.uk/email.html
North End, Lynn, Norfolk, England
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses