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
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
:I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think). | :I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think). | ||
**Instead "acts which are not authorized" are part of the license: these acts concern possible '''moral rights'''. --[[User:82.55.207.199|82.55.207.199]] 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | |||
:By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | :By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | ||
** The law (EUCD is applied with national laws) is law: if you want legally oppose DRM, you must speak the language of the law. --[[User:82.55.207.199|82.55.207.199]] 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | |||
:: No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | :: No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--[[User:Erik Möller|Erik Möller]] 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | ||
:One might also refer to the [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00095.html debian-legal thread] about Against DRM 1.0. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | I'm not involved with the license: I'm a jurist and I like this license for many reasons (what you call "vagueness", I call, in this case, "elasticity" and "knowledge of right"). | ||
A license is a technical text that must be analyzed with a technical background. | |||
In my opinion, in this simple license nothing is casual. --[[User:82.55.207.199|82.55.207.199]] 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | |||
:One might also refer to the [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00095.html debian-legal thread] about Against DRM 1.0. --[[User:Antoine|Antoine]] 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)--[[User:82.55.207.199|82.55.207.199]] 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | |||
Superficial discussion. :-) --[[User:82.55.207.199|82.55.207.199]] 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST) | |||
== GNU General Public License == | == GNU General Public License == |
Revision as of 13:16, 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)
- I do agree with Erik, the wording is much too broad and vague. "acts which are authorised or not authorised" is completely unacceptable as it can mean anything (acts which are not authorized, by construction, are not part of license, in contrast to what you would like to let us think).
- Instead "acts which are not authorized" are part of the license: these acts concern possible moral rights. --82.55.207.199 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
- By the way, 1) EUCD is not a law but an European directive 2) when the law is vague or dishonest, it is not helpful to base an argument on it. --Antoine 13:23, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
- The law (EUCD is applied with national laws) is law: if you want legally oppose DRM, you must speak the language of the law. --82.55.207.199 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
- No need to use strong terms like "completely unacceptable", I'm sure the Against DRM license has good intentions which are very much in line with the goals of the definition. The question is, could it be clarified and improved? Tom, could you perhaps state what your position is in this matter - are you directly involved with the license? If so, we might be able to hook you up with some legal people from Creative Commons or Wikimedia.--Erik Möller 13:28, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
I'm not involved with the license: I'm a jurist and I like this license for many reasons (what you call "vagueness", I call, in this case, "elasticity" and "knowledge of right"). A license is a technical text that must be analyzed with a technical background. In my opinion, in this simple license nothing is casual. --82.55.207.199 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
- One might also refer to the debian-legal thread about Against DRM 1.0. --Antoine 14:35, 2 May 2006 (CEST)--82.55.207.199 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
Superficial discussion. :-) --82.55.207.199 15:16, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
GNU General Public License
Any reason this license isn't included as a free content license? --Ricardo Gladwell 14:13, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
- It is, under "all free software licenses".--Erik Möller 14:15, 2 May 2006 (CEST)
- Apologies, I missed that. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly list the GPL as many individuals use it as both a software and contennt license? - Ricardo Gladwell 14:36, 2 May 2006 (CEST)