Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>         Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without a
>         parallel distribution proviso, make it incompatible with the
>         DFSG?

It means that any work under any CC 3.0 does not follow the DFSG unless
the licensor grants additional permission, IMO.

A minimal fix is to change "restrict" in the TPM ban phrases to "have
the intent or effect of restricting" which allows TPM/non-TPM parallel
works and this problem goes away.  That phrase has been in CC licences
before (CC Scotland 2.5, for example).  Why doesn't CC do that?

Are any details of the iSummit affiliates meetings recorded?

How does CC make decisions?  They know how we make decisions and seem
to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general
resolution.  Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
resolution?  Who are CC's members?  I know some CC supporters who are
sympathetic, but I don't think I've met any with established voting
power yet.

>      1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of
>         our principles?

Neither.  It was a single-point compromise interpretation.  So, the other
two questions asked are irrelevant.

> I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to
> collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how
> long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here.

Thank you!  I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time.
I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at
which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know.

Best wishes,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to