[cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Dec 4 07:28:12 EST 2006
On Monday 04 December 2006 04:16 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > With parallel distribution, DRM doesn't create incompatible pools. The
> > unencumbered version always allows individuals to take the work back to
> > the lingua franca of no DRM.
>
> If you really believe this, then you haven't been paying as much
> attention to this discussion as you claim to have.
>
> It has been clearly demonstrated that such pools are created by a TPM+PD
> clause: one for each DRM-locked platform.
Terry, in fairness, I think you may misunderstand his use of the word pool. I
think I see things as he does. With PD, the pool of "works" remains one for
say BY-SA works. While multiple variations of SA licenses would create
incompatible pools unless language was included as a way around it.
It is the non-tpm copy that keeps the pool united. (Until we can't buy any
devices that can work with the non-tpm works.)
Two way transfer between pools would defeat the purpose as far as the monopoly
behaviour. One way from monopoly-TPM-OK to monopoly-TPM-not-OK, or however
the line is drawn, could work but would go against the wishes of those
applying their choice of license?
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
all the best,
drew
--
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list