On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:48:43 +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> CC Attrib 3.0 still doesn't permit downstream versions to be
> distributed under any device with DRM-like features. debian-legal@
> insists that there shall be absolutely no hindrances to downstream
> distribution, including well-intentioned hindrances like anti-DRM
> clauses(their arguments being fair-use situations like encrypted
> filesystems etc.). CC's coalition partners insist that anti-DRM
> clauses should not be removed.
So CC folk think that these materials can not be downloaded to
encrypted file systems? (I confess I am not following the debate).
How about chmod 600 file.png? Is that a DRM feature?
How about chmod 660 file.png, so only people in a privileged
group can see the picture. Is this DRM like?
> As an individual, I have every right to take my own position, and I
> consider the current "stand-off" between debian-legal@ and CC really
> sad. In my view both of them are on the same side, with similar
> intentions.
> If I was a machine(or a lawyer), I would have said "Not DFSG
> compatible! CC bad!". But I am a human, and I can make out
> intentions. If you take the case of encrypted filesystems, whose right
> is debian-legal@ defending? People who break into other's hard disk
> and try to snoop on others data?
Hmm? It seems to me that debian-legal is defending my right,
since I have my laptop fully encrypted, then I can't put CC material on
it (since only people authorized to read the drive can access the
material -- DRM!!)
If the DRM clauses are written unclearly enough that I can't
download the material on my laptop (which is fully encrypted, aside
from a smallish /boot), then the license, in my eyes, is clearly
non-free.
What am I missing?
> DFSG is an excellent and noble document. But it currently cannot catch
> these intention related issues. I would take it as my definitive and
> serious guideline when confronted with FOSS values issues. But still
> just as a guideline.
> But again, please forgive my ranting about DFSG and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is just not restricted to Debian and DFSG. There
> have been similar frequent issues with licence incompatibility in the
> FOSS world before, explained very well at
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709
> In each such situations, it is upto the author to take a stand on what
> his intention is, what his values are and what compromises he can live
> with. Right now, I consider CC Attrib 3.0 to be my preferred licence
> to share my photos, text and other content, and I would recommend
> other like minded folks to do so, unless they are okay with the
> public-domain licence(the free-er the licence, the better for the
> commons).
That is sad, since I can no longer view these pictures, since my
device, my laptop, as the trusted computing hardware, and has a fully
encrypted hard drive, and uses mandatory access controls to enforce
security policy. If these are DRM features (I can make sure that only
authorized people can see documents on my machine)
I do need to go back and see what is currently deemed a DRM
device.
manoj
--
"That boy's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver" Foghorn Leghorn
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Next Event: http://freed.in - February 22/23, 2008
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
