On Fri, 2006-19-05 at 02:24 -0700, Max Brown wrote: > This is very interesting: > http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
Yes it is. And thank you for proving the point I made earlier! You may not have noticed, but that summary and general opinion on debian-legal state that anti-DRM clauses inhibit more freedoms than they protect. > I think that "Against DRM 2.0" is better than Creative Commons > licenses. That's an interesting opinion. Of course you know that the anti-DRM clause makes the license incompatible with the DFSG, right? There are many platforms that _require_ DRM -- notably Sony game consoles and some palmtop computers. The "Against DRM" license (which might win the contest for the license with the clumsiest name ever) would prevent me from porting any software to those platforms -- even if I made clear-text, modifiable and/or source versions available. Preventing me from making derivative works and porting them to different platforms, even if I take steps to ensure recipients' rights to use the works, is not DFSG-free. In the end, "Against DRM" is a single-issue license that's blunt and unnecessary. ~Evan P.S. The Creative Commons 3.0 licenses will allow "parallel distribution" -- both a DRM'd version and modifiable, clear-text version. They also make specific which kinds of technologies are covered. -- Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]