Commons talk:Licensing/ADRM

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Against DRM 1.0[edit]

We had a request on #wikipedia-no to translate Template:ADRM. I am not sure if this license is according to present policy. Can someone please verify the correctness of this, wetter it is acceptable or not?

(00:19:03) mx123: Who can translate this license in your language? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:ADRM
-- removed stuff which is not relevant --
(00:20:12) agtfjott: mx123, I'll take a look
(00:21:16) agtfjott: mx123 what is this?
(00:21:41) agtfjott: Is this a license to be used on commons?
(00:25:02) agtfjott: I can't figure out if this complies with present policy on commons and/or Wikipedia.
(00:25:36) agtfjott: I believe it does clash with some parts of the present policy

It would be nice if we could be notified on Wikipedia:Tinget about the outcome of the discussion.

John Erling Blad (jeb) 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a license that says: "You are not allowed using that content in -just an example- iTunes under any cirumstance", as iTunes is DRM ruled makes it nonfree. However DRM does harm the copyleft principle a strong copyleft needs to react somehow to DRM (and that's what the FSF does). So I think in contrast all licenses that require you to provide the content DRM-free upon request of every interested user are free: At the one side you can use that material on DRM ruled environements and do effectivly make DRM pointless on the other side as you have the right getting the content as well without DRM. But a license that prohibits using that material is simply a restriction getting too far and is only a pain for the end user and makes big trouble with that content being used for example at my Sony MD player (has silly DRM as well which is a pain). Arnomane 23:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this license is not acceptable on the Commons, since it restricts how the work can be used. I also think it's just a bad license, since it also prevents transmitting a work via SSH. User:dbenbenn 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests#Image:Red logo.png. User:dbenbenn 23:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to speak of HTTPS... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not mentioning that the GNU FDL strictly forbidds DRM? Licenses compatible with the GNU FDL should be accepted anyway! --Historiograf 21:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Let me quote from the license (see the link at the bottom of each page):
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
Bogdan 18:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you should read the sentence "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." carfully. In case you provide GFDL'd content with DRM you need to provide the very same content to every interested person as well without DRM upon their request. People that read the GFDL as "I am not allowed to publish GFDL content as well under DRM beside DRM-free copies" simply do read more than is written there. Against DRM in contrast does not allow me to distribute DRM-ruled copies even if I provide the same content without DRM. And this is not acceptable. Arnomane 21:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you distribute DRM-ruled copies under GFDL? Can you distribute DRM-ruled copies under Creative Commons (see Creative Commons anti-DRM clause!)? No! If you are the licensor, you can distribute DRM-ruled copies without license! And you can distribute not DRM-ruled copies with the license.

This license is free in according to Wikimedia Commons Policy (see it). --87.6.172.189 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Short notice. I wrote larger parts of the relevant Commons policies (Commons:Project scope and Commons:Licensing). So I must have read it. Arnomane 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Let me quote CC license, too:
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.
Bogdan 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is there mentioned that I am not allowed using DRM beside DRM-free copies be it GFDL or CC-something? DRM is like printing source code into books. I for sure sometimes want to print out things and want to sell them (yes have done that with Wikimedia content) but the electronic copy is required too. The same is with DRM. DRM makes a copy opaque (speaking with the terms of the GFDL) but it is just very pointless forbidding opaque copies. And that is what Against DRM does. And this is not acceptable. Arnomane 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
1. Is this not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons Policy?? A link, please.

2. You may not distribute [...] the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work: it's clear! You may not distribute DRM-ruled copies (even if you provide the same content without DRM)! Where is mentioned your exception?? --82.55.203.242 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Arnomane, can you answer him?? ;-P --Bogos 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have answered already. If I distribute the same content with DRM and without at the same time I do not use technical measures in order to "control access or use of the Work" itself ("Copy" is not the same as "Work") . But if you like I will personally write to the FSF. Against-DRM license is like Against-SCO and Against-Foobar. We both don't like DRM and SCO but it makes no sense reducing your own freedom in order to harm your enemy. Arnomane 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are confused... write to FSF: perhaps they can enlighten you. ;-) --Bogos 23:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be a little bit more carefully on your side what you write. I suppose that "confused" is the wrong word for somebody that cares for ages on licensing. Thank you. Arnomane 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Confused" is the right word for somebody that is confused. --87.6.203.58 10:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)