Ben Finney concluded: > So, if the other requirements of the GPLv3 are met, the recipient can > redistribute on any media, even those that implement access > restrictions.
Aha, That means my previous assertion was wrong: > So while the [anti-TPM] method [in CC and GPLv3] is rather different, > the end-result is exactly the same. You assert that GPLv3 allows "parallel distribution" (thus a work with/on DRM as long as it is also available for free"), while CC does never allow a work on/with DRM. That is a difference indeed. Francesco: thanks for your comments. While I generally disagree with you, it is helpful to have an opposing voice. I'm sorry that my original question ended in some flaming; that was not my intention. Finally, thanks to MJ Ray. I think your opinion is a very useful guideline for authers (and some pointers): > - The CC-3.0 TPM clause is confusing and may not be an anti-TPM > clause - see http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/ip/20061115-00.html and > http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution and maybe even > http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/cc#tpmcc > - I'm fine with [CC licenses] being in main if the project is > happy to take the risk. I appreciate this pragmatic approach. > - Oxygen is good. Oh no, not for the metal parts on my bike it is. Regards, Freek (riding a rusty vehicle) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
