 Another one of the problems was the trademark restrictions. Let's see. And if you guys actually look at people.damian.org, Tilde, Evan, CC Summary, not HTML, you can actually see the summary of none of the issues as I'm kind of going through them. And so, yeah, and the trademark restrictions were the fact that Creative Commons is trademarked and it couldn't be used by anybody else but Creative Commons. Which is fine, but it's kind of confusing because you have to refer to the licensees if they want. And so that was one of the issues. And the major issue that is still kind of around in the Creative Commons 3.0 are the anti-DRM clauses. And I think most people here would agree that in general DRM is a bad thing. Having works that are not restricted by DRM is extremely important. But the problem is that there are significant number of devices, including, for example, the sewing play station and a couple others, which require that works be digitally signed in some way, shape, or form. For example, even works in Demian's archive have, although it's not really DRM because its users are overwriteable, there's some sort of restriction on the default set of packages that can be installed. You have to have packages coming from a place or a repository that's signed with a key that happens to be in the key ring, which has been added using app key or whatever. So, a very rudimentary form of DRM but a type of restriction on the types of works that can be deployed to a device. And so the CC license was written in such a way that it required that works distributed under a CC license, not being covered by DRM. And the problem with that is that normally the proper way to write such a license, or in my opinion, the proper way to write such a license, is to allow a work to be distributed with DRM, concomitant with a non-DRM distribution. In that way you can, you have full rights to distribute the work, because it's not, you have a copy that is not DRM encumbered, and you have a copy that is DRM encumbered for whatever stupid device you're using, but that's the only way that it will work. Unfortunately, and this is really where the breakdown came, we were unable to completely convince creative comments of the necessity for various specific devices, allowing this sort of dual nature distribution. And because of the complexity of the language required, specifically stated, okay, in the case where you distribute a DRM encumber, you must also distribute a non-DRM encumbered version, was basically lost on the cutting floor, because it was a complexity to the license. It did make the license more difficult to understand for people who were not used to reading licenses. And a significant number of people who were on the DRM advisory board, or sorry, the CC advisory board weren't necessarily, or weren't cognizant of the need for distribution in DRM encumbered to specific works. So they thought that by making, their logic is in fact that by restricting this class of works from being playable on players that only accept DRM works, that they would undermine the commercial ethnogamy of DRM-olden players. Which is, I mean, it's kind of a convincing argument. Sorry. Which is kind of a convincing argument, but not necessarily useful for pre-existing devices, which have, I mean, obviously the PlayStation stuff has been broken forever, but it is technically a form of DRM. So that's, in a nutshell, as convoluted as I did, the issues that we are facing. And why this is important is because, as you know, there's a large number of works on your Creative Commons license, and a lot of people are writing stuff on your Creative Commons, and we would very much like to have all these works available in Debian to be able to upload them to main because there's a lot of documentation that people are writing in Creative Commons. There's a lot of pictures, games, sound files, especially that people are licensed in Creative Commons, and we would like to be able to include them. But basically until those issues are ironed out, the first two that I talked about happen, but the DRM was ironed out. It's not necessarily clear that they can be incorporated in the Debian. What it basically has to happen is we'd have to have a GR or something, or FTD master would have to overrule Debian legal to save APs. Yeah, I mean, it's pretty rare for... Debian legal tends to be much more conservative than the project as a whole, but it only happens in cases where, like, the only one I can think of is GFDL works, and it was very much a compromise about those works. So would all the CC licenses have this and that DRM clause? Yes, the question is, do all CC licenses have this DRM clause? And yeah, it's not one of the add-and-take-away clauses it's present in all of them. I should, of course, mention that there are, of course, cases or classes of CC licenses which are inherently incompatible with the DFSG. Yeah, the non-commercial and some of the other ones, but the base course has this DRM restriction, which is a problem. Okay, so is there anything that I missed? I mean, I'm not entirely sure exactly what evidence is going to hit at that kind of overview. It's not really much of a problem, because it's basically, it's been fixed now as a 3.0 version, and it's only the fact that you could refer to Creative Commons. So it says that you... Yeah, so as far as I know, the 3.0 version, they've made it very, very good, and that's not part of the license. And there may be some still 2.0 version works that had that, or basically trademarked a bit, still in it, but assuming you talked about the license here, they should be in it. Is that like the clause that at the end of GPL, that says Ty Kuhn in the example and something, it was one of the good license? Oh, yeah, that's a little different, because there's verbiage in the GPL which specifically states that this is how you license stuff on the GPL. Yeah, exactly. It's sort of, and a lot of the licenses appear to be part of the license, which it wasn't intended to be. I think it was a clause that was at the bottom of the webpage centered it like a footer that was on all CC webpages, and people with their licensing stuff just copied it in, because it was there. Apparently that wasn't a HR or R or something. Can we now make random comments about the issue? Yeah, sure. I need a microphone about that. I guess, how about... Can I use this one? I can use this one here. Why don't we have this one? It's not here, but what do we do? We'll pass it to the microphone. It was unclear to me how the creative comments, Syntrosion, it tries to address the issue of non-licensing stuff freely by the users of digital cameras. Their primary example that I've heard said that we want to have an easy selection of licenses, so that maybe Panasonic or Sony can implement a camera where you take a photo, and then the camera asks you which CC devices do you want, and then you just click on it. So, how does there stand that DRM is completely out of the question? How does that go hand in hand with the collaboration with the industry? Did they explain this strange situation? Yeah, I'm not sure if they had a very good explanation. They just thought this was a good idea at the time. One of the issues is that they both want to have CC everywhere, and so they were thinking that it was more consumer-facing, rather than hardware. Whereas the other issue is that the media and the trends of media, which very much is the battle that CC is primarily looking at, they're not like we are, or deviant, we're looking at where we're primarily looking at through software. They're primarily looking at the issue of fighting in the AIR and the various arguments, restrictions. Doesn't that sound like they're picking up on the free software foundation vibe, rather than let's do something productive deviant vibe? Aren't they a bit extreme if they are doing something that general? I don't know if you can say it's extreme, because Demi sort of has both aspects as well. Yeah, we have both aspects in the day. At the end of the day, CC isn't making works. It's an enabling office to license their works in a specific way. It was at the end of the day, Demi had to make an distribution. It happens through the free software distribution, which is kind of interesting too, because at the end of the day, the free software foundation, and its sub-project to do, is making free offerings. So it's kind of a different thing. Yeah, three different viewpoints, ten points. Right. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I mean, I'm not an up-and-up on CCs in child politics, but it's hard enough to stay with the deviant. We have no politics of our own. It sounds a bit strange. They're like an RC bunch. They're not computer-oriented, and yet they see the DRM as the great evil, and then they want to eradicate it. So it's inconsistent in my mind, maybe, for them it's inconsistent. Yeah, well, I think part of the thing is, is a lot of them actually use these types of media devices to make comfort. It's a backlash. Right. I mean, one of their families, who is a person that he does a lot of... Sorry, can you read something? Corey, doctor? He's a... He's had a lot of experience with DRM devices, and it's an issue around it. Because it's sort of looking at it more in the consumer aspect, whereas in the computer realm, we've got stuff that use the source code to modify it. They're being... I can't blame my media that I purchased on any device that I want. Books that I've written. It's like if we were out to get, you know, compatibility and interoperability on Windows instead of making our own operating system and freedom of the team. Doesn't that sound like a good analogy? They are going out into the existing proprietary world, and then trying to fix that. Trying to propagate to other... They're sort of doing the advocacy part of the Free Software Foundation. So, only some software of this episode is actually written, okay? Why people who were made otherwise directly launching their SNFs. A lot of the software is just being produced, saying, hey, I agree with what the episode says. I'm going to license my work. We're just risking what it sees. It's that aspect. So, they're trying to convince the creator to the work, syncing like that episode. Convince the creator to the work. But, yeah, they do have such a different topic. A little software to put that in the line. I'll turn the mic over to someone else. I understand you're not leaving the session, but what's the purpose of this... What's the purpose of this session? I think we're very clear on the information on the topic now. We understand the problem. So, what precisely is the problem to devion? What's the purpose of this session? So, I guess, what are we going to do about it? Okay, so, as much as I could infer from the title of the talk and everything, what would be best if we could come up with some sort of understanding of what had brought, why we were able to convince CC of the difference between the philosophy and what we can do in the future, both with CC and because we're going to run into this issue when we run into it again with Sun, CDL, for example, and we're going to continue to run into it. What can you do to convince people who have different philosophies that are philosophies and are true philosophies and they're very confusing? But, or at least, it's in their best interest to try to come to our point of view or to meet some of the little things that have some sort of work that will be compatible with the industry? Very clear. So, there's been a start to convincing that and that's been rejected that way. So, what precisely is the problem with the devion? Is it the inclusion of certain things which are unnecessarily well-since within the devion description which is not there? Right, exactly. That's what we'd like to be able to do and I think to just resolve the last of all the issues there's no way that it could be done. Either, if we have to take creative problems or possibly talk to the authors to give a specific way to work around a little bit of what we're also facing. That makes sense to me. That sounds like a good place. Thank you. We have an example. Any software or material? I think once a package which is licensed under the NIOGF-LGPL it comes with a set of SVG pictures that an artist drew and the artist said, I want this to be share live for us. Please, in comments. Do we reject the package or do we keep it? Yeah, currently we reject it. So what is the exact advice given to maintainers? What do you do? Like go to the upstream and just yell at them or do you do a license? Is there an exact clause to be added, verbiage, already written? What do people do? I mean, from my perspective what I would recommend that industry authors do is try to license everything in the world under the same license. So if they've got graphics in a GPL word, the graphics should be detailed. Especially in the case of SVG there's no question what the source code is. It's the SVG file. And so, yeah, they should definitely, I mean, to the extent possible they should license it under the same license or the method they should do. And it's fine if they want to do a license. We don't care so long if there's some pathway through the licenses that are billed and that's the SVG that's written on their head. Yeah, one example, the reason we keep up there's kind of interesting is using files. I think from Friends on Fire that came up, because one of the authors is in Finland which has some sort of weird, perhaps it's not weird, I think it was weird from my American perspective. But a compulsory copyright assignment for real-life artists where this group that they assign a contract should collect royalties for the author. And any work that you create is automatically as it's copyright assignment to this group who supposedly collects the royalties for you. And you can't collect any royalties without assigning a contract if your assignment works. So that's another issue that sometimes comes up in this related case. Yeah, that's another thing. My question about the moral authority aspect of it is with this Creative Commons work group there's sort of various people who are sort of appointed or invited on to it which, you know, would be more from Debbie Legal's commemorial, but then at the end we have Creative Commons coming back and saying to us that although the DRM it can't be a problem because they've been disposed about in the FDL, we have the moral authority and do you think groups like this should have the moral authority or should everything go through sort of a vote of developers, GR or something? Or how could we actually have some moral authority to use with the Creative Commons without them or other groups to come back and tell us what their duty is? Do you have thoughts on that? Do other people have thoughts on that? Yeah, that's actually a good question. Sorry, just a brief response. I think you have moral authority but only in the group of people in a subset of people who believe in everything. The issue is how far the moral authority stands. Do you think Creative Commons can almost remodest the problems that are causing the development of the project? Personally, I don't know. It's always a question when you're dealing with subgroups of a project exactly how far a small subset can speak for the whole time. It's a very thorny question and I'd like to avoid as much as possible by claiming that I don't speak for myself. Which of course I do now. But yeah, it is a good question. I don't know how we can really convey that because in that case it sort of has a very anarchistic organization and there's no real way to say the project says unless you do it as a GR. I mean, even the DPL can make decisions on behalf of the project. It's still subject to being overwritten by a GR. And so there's a limit to the amount of the single person or a small group you can do. I mean, I think besides packages that's about the DT's authority. I think the best thing that can be done is to make the process as public as possible and people who disagree within the project their disagreement may as publicly as possible so that it's obvious or relatively obvious who has consensus and who doesn't. I don't really have a solution for that question and I was just asked the CDDL point of the line devil, you know, how does legal speak for the project when it's been over the project and there's not really an answer. Let's have this intriguing political discussion. Sure. The overriding was a pragmatic one. We decided that the anti-deering clause in the DFHG was set aside. The problem was set aside because the option was let's just release Sarge or Edgeworth. Right, it was Sarge. So, you know, it was a subjective vote, basically. We weren't deciding on the legal matters. We were deciding on the whole timing, the future of Demian, if you will, at that point. It was just, let's try down the legal thing or let's scale the legal thing because they are so cool. It was, okay, let's do the, let's just get past the issue. Right, yeah. I mean, I'm not trying to say that it was a direct, I don't know what to say. I mean, I meant that it was a case where the legal has, legal had thought that it was a much more of an issue that needed to be resolved completely. And in some cases, it was much more conservative in that aspect of the project, which wanted to be more pragmatic, which is always a, which is always a question because people who usually are looking at the license is going to be more conservative, I mean, or nitpicking, basically. Then the project of the law, which wants to get on with it and the FDL. Which is all right. Yeah, exactly, it's definitely a balance between the two. Just sort of thing about the Sarge and FDL link. The vote about releasing the Sarge, even with a lot of read documents, was July 2004. And then there was another one about the FDL in April last year. And I think the second of those, the sort of general statement about the FDL, I think it was about etch. It was about etch, because we were thinking that we have only six months for etch, we get to release at that point. Can you repeat that, please? Yeah, July. April 2006 or something. April. So April, and we were thinking, et cetera. Can you please use your microphone? Yeah. Was the April 100, I wrote. April 2006 original text, I think it's out into the towns. But did you approve it? No, for whatever reason, the primary option was to do that. But then it was actually an amended one that was passed. I can't remember who wrote that, and I haven't even got that in my notes. Okay. Which means we have to actually just slide aside. I don't have a slightly further thing. I have a position statement that says, why the FDL is not acceptable for Deleon, which explains why it is. Yeah. It was... Let's get back to the matter of who gets to speak for whom. I think that this whole situation, put the FTB master team between a rock and a hard place, because they are the ultimate deciding authority. They can claim, oh, Deleon legal teams do that, but it wasn't the Deleon's legal team doing anything. They were going through with that, and they were filing papers with the whatever agency in America. A legal liability was theirs, actually. So we're not making much sense of that whole thing, but about the moral authority issue. I think we still have a moral authority. As a whole, each of the three entities in the whole process may come a whole, which is, of course, amorphous. It's like an amorphous blob of opinions and statements and yelling and shouting and being called and everything, but the moral authority is still within our... There it exists. It's not articulated. It's not made into a position statement or anything, but there is still the whole thought about Deleon. And now about the creative comment thing. They do not have any moral authority, in my opinion. The FSS has moral authority, because they actually did produce software. That was licensed under the GPL and the LGPL and the other licenses. Even the GMDL that we all love to create. They did produce stuff under those licenses. So they have the credit. They have the street credit about that, and they have the authority to say, OK, we did the principle thing, and it worked. But the creative comments did nothing. They just recommended that other people do something that is principled and we support them. There's a gaping hole. Yeah. Well, I think part of the issue, too, is that the governance structure of CC isn't just clear. Although I have to admit that FSS has this issue as well, because it's not entirely clear at FSS besides RMS has the final say. Whereas in Deleon, it's quite clear. The final say, compared to the point of view of the document. Yeah. I mean, the final say, rest of the developers. At the end of the day, I mean, that's to either, by not doing anything taxically affirmed or by GR and overruling, set what happens. So in a sense, I was saying, we have the authority and we should be able to override either through saying we have the moral authority or either through saying we are smart in the new or either through saying this is our argument, listen to us or be condemned to eternal stupidity. You know, we have this sway, we have this power because we do something with the whole thing. Although we have to be careful, too, because people in CC, they actually do works as well. So, I mean, even though the group is a whole, this job isn't to make work. There are members, but they can do. So, I mean... In much less articulate way than ours. Yeah. And that may be why it's more of a use. I mean, and it's not so clear exactly who is making the decisions. Or why. But of course, it's probably the same if you're outside of getting and looking at it. It's probably different from seeing how these things work. Yeah. Whereas... Yeah. The actual problem, I think we have with them, is not whether they make this decision. It's whether they influence through their media campaigns and whatever they do. Because they do stuff. You know, they have this propaganda machine, basically, that is actually a good thing. And it's one day it may outgrow their current state and they will become a bigger thing than they are. So, at that point we have a real problem, because... Well, I think you're absolutely right. I think the number of works that are season-wise. Now, probably exceeds another number of works that are GDL. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would not be surprised if that was the case. That becomes by a magnitude larger than we can talk about. But yeah, very good empirical view. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Sorry I came in late, so I didn't touch the piano at all with this. Can you just quickly outline which CC licenses are an issue or are they not on the machine? Yes. What we're talking about is the server. And when it started, we had it in 2005, a group of people, a subset of legal, who were trying to convince creative companies to resolve a couple of issues, generic issues with their license. They're obviously in the set of classes, CC licenses, the non-profit licenses, that cannot be used in a period of time, so they're incompatible with the industry. But there were a couple of minor technical issues with the license, and the inability to issue DRM-encumbered works using the CC license. That was problematic for the DFSG. The reason that is is because we put both the students at DFSG-encumbered work alongside a non-encumbered work for use in things that are totally broken and only accept DRM, and it's like some of the PlayStation games. So, and to a lesser extent, even the archive is at some sort of restriction on it, because you can't, by default, install packages without overwriting that part. So that was basically a minor issue that we thought was pretty obvious and everybody would agree with us, but at the end of the day, we weren't able to convince creative comments that they should allow their other older students in their anti-ideal laws. So that's basically the issue, and we're sort of talking about why that happened, why we weren't able to communicate consensus from Debbie very well to creative comments, and sort of guessing in a general sense of whatever this is actually going to talk about, because as you know, I'm not good at it. Okay, I guess I could tie it up here. There's always any questions, or comments, or feel free to talk to me or email Debbie. We'll send you there. We'll yell at you and send you through. Thank you very much, and feel free to ask Evan what he was actually going to talk about as well as some insight.