The current discussion on the license draft is mind
boggling. Hence
this query whether the following close-to-real-life scenario
is
permitted under the current draft of the cc license.
Larry Learner would like to teach german to himself. As a
good friend
I create some audio lessons for him. I do so by reading
texts licensed
under the GNU FDL and the (say) by-sa license. I provide
some
translation myself and I hereby create a derived work. Larry
wants to
listen to the audio lessons on his portable audio player (so
far, this
happened in the past).
Unfortunately Larry only owns a DRM-enabled portable audio
player but
there is a legal way to record the home-grown audio to the
player (key
is available).
Can I comply with the license terms if I download the audio
to his player?
my problems:
- If the DRM-key is locked to the player (comparable to
Garmin GPS
devices) then Larry cannot distribute his drm-enabled
version to
somebody else in the future.
- The proposed parallel distribution might help, as Larry
can
re-create the content using the backup or ask somebody else
to do
this. However, other issues I do not fully understand
(roundup see
[1]) are preventing this solution.
- so I might have to tell Larry, that I cannot do him this
favour
because a "free" license is preventing me from
doing so. I might have
some trouble explaining that.
- Is the issue of mixing GNU FDL content with by-sa content
resolved?
or - as the author of a work I'd like to have a license that
- grants certain rights to the licensee. The by-sa does that
job very well
- I don't like that others lock down the rights of licensee
by DRM.
But I do want the licensee to use my work on a DRM-enabled
device. My
work should be usable on a wide range of platforms and I
don't want to
limit the licensees choice of platform (I don't like DRM -
but common
sense suggests that we have to live with that in the
future).
- as it currently stands, the creative common license draft
is a no-go
for me due to the reasoning above.
so - why not consider that parallel distribution approach
treating the
DRM-free-version similar to sourcecode in the GPLV2 and the
DRM-enabled version as binary? I don't get it.
Joerg Zastrau
[1] http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-lic
enses/2006-October/004251.html
--
Jörg Zastrau
Buchenlochstraße 66a, App. A-14
67663 Kaiserslautern
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|