$12256 / $11500
So, recently I have come across the Against DRM 2.0 License (http://www.freecreations.org/Against_DRM2.html). This license has to do with the growing problem of DRM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) on the web, and tries to fight against it. I think it might be a good idea to add the Against DRM 2.0 License to the OGA website as one of the options (along with the Creative Commons licenses, GPL, and otherwise). I've already added it to a project of mine in the "Copyright/Attribution Notice" section, and I think it would be a nice license to have readily available on the website.
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
If you read around, it seems CC already has an 'no access control allowed' clause. Mostly known because it seems to disallow Apple's iOS drm.
Looking at it as a layperson, I wonder what the difference is between this license and CC-BY-SA? Outside of the 'no DRM' bit being more blatantly obvious?
Yes, CC BY and CC-BY-SA already disallow DRM, but many artists have waived the anti-drm clause because, although it's a noble cause, restricting it often limits usability. So there is some mixed feelings about DRM restrictions.
Unless Against DRM license adds something fundamental not already present in CC BY licenses, I wonder how much use it would see on OGA.
--Medicine StormThe Creative Commons licenses were written with the advice of actual lawyers and already contain a key provision designed to prevent egregious uses of DRM which would likely close down access to works. Even better, they've been tested in several courts and held up. While it's fun to write one's own license for everything, the problem of license proliferation is real and ought to be taken seriously.
This Anti-DRM license is strictly copyleft, meaning it competes against CC-BY-SA. It explicitly lacks the waiver of moral rights that CC has, which is frankly a disaster waiting to strike in the future and a terrible decision by the designer/author. Furthermore, Against DRM has given many terms its own unique definitions which are far too likely to contain multiple subtle incompatibilities with other licenses. It claims to be cross-compatible with other licenses, but this is exceptionally unlikely to be true in multiple legal jurisdictions due to the redefinition problem alone, without even getting into potential nightmares in the specific provisions themselves.
^that, also.
--Medicine StormI don't think the issue should be whether anti DRM clauses are good or bad, or whether some download sites force use of DRM (I don't think you can distribute GPL on ios because apple can't adhere to the licence, but that doesn't mean the GPL is wrong for software). Such clauses are still compatible with being Open/Free.
However, it is a problem that it seems to be a non notable licence, and adding this would just add to risk of licence incompatibility. Is it accepted by the OSI or FSF as an open or free licence?
Since it doesn't seem to add anything new (it's well covered by the CC licences) there seems to be no benefit to adding it. Unlike the GPL debate, there doesn't seem to be notable existing game art under this licence.
As an aside, I'm surprised the Wikipedia article for it has survived for so long, when it cites no third party sources or evidence of notability...