Position summary

is the latest version of the parallel distribution amendment
 
suggested by Debian the one proposed at http://people.debian.org/ 
~evan/ccsummary.html ?

"You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly
perform, or  
publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological
measures  
that prevent the recipient from exercising the rights
granted to them  
by section 8a and section 3 of this License, unless you also
 
distribute, publicly display, publicly perform or publicly
digitally  
perform the Work for the same recipient without those
measures."

i don't think that noone is asking to be allowed to
distribute CC  
content on DRM platforms, but that the risk of
discrimination through  
restriction on exercizing the rights granted to the licensee
look  
higher than the additional transaction cost for a DRM
platform to  
negotiate separate authorizations with CC licensors. (as
they may  
contact licensors for other purposes: non infringement
warranties,  
check CC metadata are embedded in the work file format...).

thanks for the summarized position and the other comments
toward  
compatibility with DFSG,
melanie


Le 7 oct. 06 à 18:32, Evan Prodromou a écrit :

> This is my personal position on the 3.0 licenses.
>
> I believe that Creative Commons has a poor reputation
in the Free  
> Software community. I believe that this reputation
could be  
> significantly improved if CC-licensed works were
allowed into  
> Debian GNU/Linux. Debian is one of three entities that
"approve"  
> licenses (Debian, FSF, OSI), and its decisions are held
in high  
> regard by the greater FLOSS community.
>
> I'm glad that so many of the original problems we had
with the 2.0  
> licenses have been solved. I think that parallel
distribution is a  
> similarly minute issue. I think that parallel
distribution is a  
> fair and equitable way to allow the Creative Commons
message to  
> expand with DRM-required platforms without endangering
the freedoms  
> of downstream users. The user has the same rights to
the work  
> (play, modify, distribute) as they would otherwise; in
this case,  
> the rights are spread across different file formats of
the same  
> work. In the case of source/object code for programs,
we have  
> another case where freedoms are distributed across
different file  
> formats of the same work.
>
> I am concerned that we will be forced to take this
decision later  
> based on market pressures; I think it's better for the
CC project  
> to work out an equitable way to do it now, rather than
being forced  
> into it later.
>
> I  reject the argument that no one is asking to be
allowed to  
> distribute on DRM-required platforms; Debian is asking
for it. If  
> no one was asking for it, the subject would have never
come up.
>
> I and others have worked extremely hard for more than 2
years to  
> make these licenses compatible with the Debian Free
Software  
> Guidelines. I'd like to thank Mia Garlick and Larry
Lessig for all  
> their effort in this matter; also the members of the
Debian  
> Creative Commons Workgroup and other debian-legal
members who've  
> helped get this process moving.
>
> Thanks,
>
> ~Evan
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

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