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
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
The law (EUCD) say: | The law (EUCD) say: | ||
the expression ‘technological | ''the expression ‘technological | ||
measures’ means any technology, device or component | measures’ means any technology, device or component | ||
that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to | that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to | ||
prevent or restrict '''acts [...] | prevent or restrict '''acts [...] | ||
which are not authorised by the rightholder''' of any | which are not authorised by the rightholder''' of any | ||
copyright or any right related to copyright. | copyright or any right related to copyright.'' | ||
Where is the vagueness? | Where is the vagueness? | ||
Revision as of 01:40, 2 May 2006
Against DRM 1.0
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)
- I find the "incompatible with .. acts which are authorised or not authorised" passage to be vague. Which acts, exactly, are we talking about? Could this mean that a licensor can say: "I disagree with your usage of encryption to conceal your personal data, as this is not an act which I have authorized?" Moreover, there is not even a reference to the work itself in the passage, so it's not clear to me that it only refers to "acts" which are related to the work. I think this passage needs to be explicit that we are talking about reducing the rights of others to the work through DRM.--Erik Möller 02:45, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
Which acts, exactly, are we talking about?
It's very simple: what does licensor authorize with the license? :-)
4. Grant of rights
Licensor authorizes licensee to exercise the following rights:
a. right of reproduction; (act of reproduction, act of multiplication...)
b. right of distribution; (act of distribution, act of diffusion...)
etc. etc. etc.
The law (EUCD) say: the expression ‘technological measures’ means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts [...] which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright.
Where is the vagueness?
The sense is clear; these acts are: reproduction, distribution... and any copyright or any right related to copyright.
--Tom 03:12, 2 May 2006 (CEST)