Yes, it did receive attention.  It does not seem to have exercised the folks on 
legal-discuss over-much.  The question was whether this, being noticed in CC-BY 
3.0 was a blocker, but it turns out the provision has been in there since CC-BY 
2.0 and those licenses are still on the good-guy list, AFAIK.

However, the way a DRM delivery satisfies the CC-BY requirement is to provide 
notice that the work is available under a CC-BY license and identify its source 
in non-DRM form.

This seems most bothersome for sound recordings and works in the performing 
arts, multi-media, etc., where the DRM delivers a performance.  The Kindle 
example is easy, because the original copyright and license information can be 
visibly included as part of the work.  If Amazon worked around that, they would 
void their use of the work under CC-BY. I suppose on videos, it could go right 
up there with the FBI and Interpol notices.  

I think this is FUD, Rob.

 - Dennis
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 09:39
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: An example of the license problems we're going to face

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Suppose someone wants to take parts of
>> the AOOo code, along with the associated documentation, and create an
>> iPhone app from it.  The ALv2 would permit them to do this with the
>> source code, but CC-BY 3.0 would not allow the same for the
>> documentation.  Similarly, one could not take the documentation, add
>> value to with additional content, and then sell it for $0.99 for the
>> Amazon Kindle.
>>
>
> Please can you explain why you believe this to be so?
>

"You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work
that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
License."

IANAL, but that was the clause that got attention on legal-discuss
when reviewing CC-BY 3.0.

-Rob


> S.
>

Reply via email to