On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > 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. >
Not at all. I can take any Apache project, modify it and publish it, without making any source code available. There is no requirement that I make it possible to copy my application or link to the source code. This has nothing to do with the irrelevancies like performance of sound or video recordings. This is the essence of the Apache License. I should be able to take Apache code, use it on a Tivo, protected by access restrictions, or embedded on a USB stick protected with password. I should be able to write it into soft ram for a quick-booting netbook. We should not setting additional constraints, above ALv2, that restrict the innovations that downstream consumers might want to implement. > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 09:39 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: An example of the license problems we're going to face > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> 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. >> > >
