Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since the CC licenses don't require distribution of the preferred > > > form for making modification aka. source code, it is essential that > > > downstream recipient can extract works for modification and > > > redistribution without violating any law that protects TPM. I think > > > that it makes sense for CC licenses to have anti-TPM language and I > > > don't think that anti-TPM language should make a license non-free. > > > > Should we accept as free software a program under a licence which does > > not allow licensees to distribute compiled files? > > > > The correct way to fix this is for CC to require source code, not > > prohibit compiled code. > > I don't understand this. How CC probihits compiled code?
The text that I was replying to above compares the non-TPM material to source code, so I compare the TPM'd material to compiled code. If you prefer: The correct way to address this is for CC to require non-TPM form, not prohibit TPM'd forms. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
