[cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
James Grimmelmann
james at grimmelmann.net
Wed Dec 6 16:41:09 EST 2006
I am coming back online after a few days with only very sporadic
computer time. I'm also mindful of the intensity of discussion among a
small number of people, so I'm only going to pick out a very few things
from the interesting points people have made in the interim.
Terry Hancock wrote:
> That is probably a natural consequence of the CC's consignment of legal
> detail to experts, implied by the whole concept of the "human readable"
> "deeds" versus the "legal code", as well as its focus on artists, who
> are likely to be dismissive of legal detail. I have some ambivalence
> about this: I think it's fair enough to represent the CC licensing to
> recipients of works in this way, but I think anybody actually applying
> these licenses to their own works should take the time to read the
> actual licenses.
As a lawyer, I'm ambivalent about it, too. Given that the law is
complicated, ambiguous, and often bad, any solution will be at best
second-best.
> The most solid argument so far is that it represents a loss of end-user
> freedoms, in exchange for preserving copyleft, and that this is perhaps
> an unacceptable trade.
As a lawyer, I'll also point out that "copyleft" is not itself an
unambiguous concept. It's a principle that could be implemented in
different ways, some of which are inconsistent with each other. This
matters because . . .
>However, this is equivalent to concluding that
> the GPL is too restrictive because of copyleft: end users are restricted
> from distributing the software linked or otherwise combined with
> proprietary software. Surely that *is* a restriction on the end-user, so
> MIT/BSD licenses are "more free" for the end user.
. . . I do not believe that adding a parallel distribution clause to the
anti-DRM clause compromises the copyleft principle. Some of you
strongly disagree with me about this, I know. But I am not advocating
that the BY-SA license abandon a copyleft principle. I am arguing,
believe it or not, that adding a parallel distribution clause would more
effectively implement copyleft.
This distinction doesn't matter to the substance of our discussion.
Explanations of why parallel distribution inhibits (or doesn't inhibit)
freedom are equally valid no matter whether one describes it as a pro-
or anti-copyleft position. I'm just making this point to emphasize that
I'm defending the parallel distribution clause in good faith, because I
think it is not only good for freedom, but good for freedom in the way
that copyleft cares about.
James
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list