Francesco wrote: > DVDs, ...), why does the clause included in CC-v3.0 licenses talk about > the right to collect royalties "for any exercise by You of the rights > granted under this License" ?
That refers to collecting societies that have both a legal monopoly, and legal mandate to collect royalty payments. If the CC license excluded that clause, the collecting society would still be collecting royalty payments, but the creator of the work could not receive the money that was collected by the collecting society. > Hence I cannot understand how can those "Non-waivable Compulsory License > Schemes" be things like sort-of-taxes on virgin media. a) Collecting societies get a cut from those taxes, which are disbursed with the rest of the royalties that they distribute. b) That clause really refers to refers to collecting royalty payments for actual performances or publication, not auxiliary unrelated products. I think that Joe Smith said it best when he wrote: "Regardless of all of that, I do not believe a program should be considered non-free because of messed up laws in some countries. It seems reasonable for a license to acknowledge the possibility of such messed up legal systems, and try minimize the damage." The Creative Commons Licenses are being tweaked to either conform to laws in specific jurisdictions, and harmonize better with existing FLOSS licenses. (Somewhere in the list archives of the cc-community list, is a discussion of what is needed to meet DFSG guidelines, and how the three existing tests (Desert island, political dissident,malevolent corporation) can be passed by work that fails freedom 0, 1, 2, or 3. The anti-TPM clause in the CC licenses theoretically prevent that situation from happening.) xan jonathon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
