Version 1.1 of the definition has been released. Please help updating it, contribute translations, and help us with the design of logos and buttons to identify free cultural works and licenses!
Talk:Licenses: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
'''Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.''' | '''Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.''' | ||
Licensee cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be '''void'''. | '''Licensee''' cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be '''void'''. | ||
Where is the vagueness? --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | Where is the vagueness? --[[User:Tom|Tom]] 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 00:33, 2 May 2006
In my opinion, Against DRM 1.0 is a free content license.
- This license is incompatible with any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor: this incompatibility causes the inapplicability of the license to the work.
- Any breach of this license [...] will automatically retroactively void this license.
The sense is clear: licensor cannot license with Against DRM 1.0 a work protected by DRM, because the license is inapplicable to works protected by DRM. Inapplicability of the license => no juridical effects.
Licensee cannot protect the work or derivative works with DRM: if licensee protect the work or derivative works with DRM, the license will be void.
Where is the vagueness? --Tom 02:32, 2 May 2006 (CEST)