Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, fine. Let's consider the case in which TPM is hard to apply:
Then isn't it an effective barrier to further modification and
redistribution (i.e. non-free)?
It's a practical problem, not necessarily something non-free.
[...]
I stand by my opinion
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] It's very frustrating to have to
repeat the same points over and over again, because some people don't
apparently read them before replying.
Amen.
I can appreciate of course, that Debian legal folk, having discussed
this already, and having
I spent far too long crafting a reply to this, then a pair of ISP/SMTP
errors sent it to /dev/null - this is a rushed rewrite. If you are in
a rush, points 17.1, 17.8, 17.13, 17.15 and 17.18 are most repeated
and you can get the gist from them.
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
MJ Ray
Terry Hancock wrote:
I have been a Debian user for several years now, an occasional free
software developer, and a user of the Creative Commons By-SA license, so
I have been following the effort to make the CCPL3.0 comply with the
Debian Free Software Guidelines with some interest. I used to
Francesco Poli wrote:
Being able to apply TPM by yourself is not enough, IMO. Because the
end user (as already said elsewhere) could be or feel to be not
skilled enough for the task. And please, do not repeat that TPM are
always easy to apply. They require some program that is often
NB: please avoid needlessly embolding words: it only heatens
discussions that are better discussed calmly.[1]
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
Prohibiting TPM *distribution* is fine under DFSG.
No, it's not.
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do copylefted
TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading my position
statement from committee D on the first discussion draft of the
GPL
URL please?
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do copylefted
TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading my position
statement from committee D on the first discussion draft of the
GPL
URL
Don Armstrong wrote:
NB: please avoid needlessly embolding words: it only heatens
discussions that are better discussed calmly.[1]
I've emboldened key words that are important not to misunderstand. This
seems to be very important as responses to several of my posts indicate
that these
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Oct 16, 2006, at 10:42, Don Armstrong wrote:
If you're seriously interested in discussing how to do
copylefted TPM and DRM properly, I strongly suggest reading
my position statement from committee D on the first
discussion
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:40:09 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:46 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:
So, are you asserting that if the CCPL3.0 included an allowance to
distribute TPM'd files, so long as the key necessary to apply TPM
to modified works
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
Prohibiting TPM *distribution* is fine under DFSG.
No, it's not. Prohibiting TPM distribution is quite clearly a
restriction on a field of endeavor.
Since distribution is always a use, then *any* distribution requirement
is a
MJ Ray wrote:
Since when has CC-By been a copyleft anyway?
CC-By is a separate issue and whether it is or is not a copyleft isn't
relevant. The terms in question ARE DFSG free, as they exist in CCPL3.0,
for By and By-SA.
FWIW, Mia Garlick notes that, unlike copyright, TPMs are not limited
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:46 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:
So, are you asserting that if the CCPL3.0 included an allowance to
distribute TPM'd files, so long as the key necessary to apply TPM
to modified works based on the non-TPM'd version were publically
available (or
MJ Ray wrote:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The case has been made that CCPL3.0 is DFSG-non-free because it
does not allow the distribution of content in TPM'd format[0]. I
assert that not only is this argument false, it is actually
reversed: allowing TPM distribution, even with
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Terry Hancock wrote:
Prohibiting TPM *distribution* is fine under DFSG.
No, it's not. Prohibiting TPM distribution is quite clearly a
restriction on a field of endeavor.
This is exactly what the Aug 9 draft of CCPL3.0 says:
You may not impose any technological measures
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The case has been made that CCPL3.0 is DFSG-non-free because it does not
allow the distribution of content in TPM'd format[0]. I assert that not
only is this argument false, it is actually reversed: allowing TPM
distribution, even with parallel
MJ Ray writes:
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A system which applies encryption, but is not enforced under law is NOT
a TPM in the legal sense of the word, and is therefore not being used
to restrict a work (legally).
Adding the adverb legally does not change the meaning of words
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:45:46 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:
[...]
Francesco Poli wrote:
Wait, wait: if the TPM are based on public key cryptography, you
could have the necessary key for applying them, but not the key
that's needed to pull them off. In that case, when you receive an
All
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 10:43:31PM -0500, Terry Hancock wrote:
Debian's determination that parallel distribution of non-TPM files
alongside TPM files will solve this problem is based on the FALSE idea
that binary/source distribution is analogous to TPM/non-TPM distribution.
However it
Hi. Not that I'm necessarily conceding other points, but the one below
is the most interesting one...
Francesco Poli wrote:
Wait, wait: if the TPM are based on public key cryptography, you
could have the necessary key for applying them, but not the key
that's needed to pull them off. In that
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:43:31 -0500 Terry Hancock wrote:
[...]
I apologize for the length of this
post, but it is summarizing the conclusions of quite a large
discussion (which I promised to the Debian folks who joined the
conversation there that I would provide here).
Thanks for the
22 matches
Mail list logo
