Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 75.98.160.130 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: 
 <CAP-ksohx=8-ny13DmaONNDM0_MuOXWK44E0P1q7=0TcSZnHUhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E5D092D.2060508@googlemail.com>
	<CAP-ksogr74_9vx-3v=AG6W=yLc351JKbyrZ5iKJ_m5kO-=s8Wg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4ffp-d8uqpoDXW0nAZiykhVtKdAgKzMsNm19s-wWcxY7cEOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksoi-wyQPiMwVd==cDfA+UAA5PPPi770f0PXYX4Y839sMPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoi-wyQPiMwVd==cDfA+UAA5PPPi770f0PXYX4Y839sMPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: An example of the license problems we're going to face
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:57:38 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <011001cc6735$ed181d90$c74858b0$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
thread-index: AQFXjKLDCw/VhnwJckDx58NrQ2l4bgJjQvx8A2/cicECtpzBQAHfdj25lcwGHmA=
Content-Language: en-us

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. =20

I think this is FUD, Rob.

 - Dennis
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]=20
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 <simon@webmink.com> =
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@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.
>