[cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
Tue Nov 28 16:12:28 EST 2006
> Ultimately, if some creators would like a stringent anti-DRM clause and
> others would prefer anti-DRM with parallel distribution, I think this is
> an entirely appropriate split to make in the licenses.
CC BY-LL : Creative Commons Parallel-Distribution-Allowed;
CC-BY-DRM : Creative Commons Digital-Rights-Management Allowed;
CC-BY-NO : Creative Commons Attribution Parallel-Distribution-Prohibited
NO is functionally opposed to both LL & DRM.
SA & ND are functionally opposed to each other
* Do you want to be attributed for you work: yes / no; [BY]
* Do you want to prohibit commercial distribution: yes/no [NC]
* Do you want to prohibit derivatives: yes/no [ND=yes SA=no]
* Do you want to prohibit DRM: yes/no [NO=yes, DR=no]
** IF DRM then
Do you want to require Parallel Distribution [LL=yes, DRM = no]
Note: The wording,and sequence of the questions can have a significant
effect on which licence(s) become the most popular.
The above sequence would result in CC-BY-NC-ND-NO being the most
commonly selected licence --- due to the design of the questions.
Technical merit would play little, if any role in license selection.
> That said, the current profusion of licenses has been generating
> confusion, and this is not a propitious time to be splitting off new
> license variants.
I suspect that most of the confusion is because:
* The specific terms are not defined within the license;
* The meaning of the licenses are vague in critical places;
I'd suggest that creating more variants now will be much better -- both
short term and long term --- than doing so in the future.
One possibility is a blanket renaming of current CC licences, that
excludes the CC name.
EG: "Walled Licence" for ND work;
More information about the cc-licenses