[cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Nov 27 18:24:48 EST 2006


On Monday 27 November 2006 05:54 pm, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="drew Roberts" date="Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:12:26PM -0500">
>
> > First, we would need to be clear that from Debian's point of view, you
> > are really only interested in BY and BY-SA creators in the first
> > place.
>
> I am not speaking on behalf of the Debian project. I've publicly stated
> that I think that the current draft text is free and acceptable -- if
> not ideal and uncontroversial -- as far as Debian is concerned.
>
> I'm arguing for parallel distribution because I've thought long and hard
> about this (as part of the Debian's consideration of the license, the
> CC/Debian committee, and the 3.0 process and discussion) and am
> convinced that is both fully in line with our principles and the right
> tactical choice.
>
> My sense is that my arguments for PD also extend to BY-NC, BY-NC-SA,
> BY-ND, and BY-NC-ND licenses. I'll admit that I have not thought about
> them quite as much because the only CC licenses I use for my own work
> are BY an BY-SA so they tend to be at the front of my mind.
>
> > I can tell you one thing. As for BY-SA creators, I don't know how many
> > of us there are. It certainly feels lonely around here. Most seem to
> > love NC and ND in their licenses.
>
> Absolutely. This is why Erik Moeller and I started the free cultural
> works definitions to help foster some normative discourse that might
> push people toward more free works. If you haven't seen it, you can find
> it at: http://freedomdefined.org

I have been there before a good while ago now. For my part, I try fairly hard 
to encourage people to make Free works. I am also experimenting with ways to 
earn a living by producing and trading in Free works.
>
> You might be pleased and amused to notice that the definition there
> *explicitly* mentions that anti-DRM clauses like the CC one are free.
> However, just because I think they are free doesn't mean I think they
> are the correct tactical choice (the BSD advertising clause is a great
> example from the world of software).

Well, I am concerned for the future when all the boxes I can buy force DRM on 
me and my works that I make now are unavailable to me.

I think those of us who are concerned with Free should take steps now that 
will lessen the chances of that occurring.

I don't understand the problem with allowing parallel distribution for DRM 
platforms which let regular user apply DRM without restrictions, but forbid 
it for those that don't. I also don't understand why no one will take up the 
discussion of that idea? (Or did I miss or forget that?)

They could also go the route of having anti DRM another top level option to be 
added at the authors choice.

Personally if I were to try and push CC to be what I think is ideal, I would 
push for dropping ND and ND from the game. (Not gonna happen I know.)

I keep aksing for them to develop a FREE CC logo and all that goes with it so 
that those of us involved in CC who are here for the Free parts of it can 
group together, see at a glance if works are ones which would interest us, 
not have to read articles in the press which tell the world that CC = BY-NC 
or BY-NC-SA. (I can hope.)

>
> Regards,
> Mako

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
785,006,026 words and counting.



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list