Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 25 September 2006 09:18 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Greg London wrote:
> >  I still do not understand why debian opposes anti-TPM. Yes, some
> >  might push for anti-TPM for political reasons, but in the case of
> >  someone like ShareAlike Sam who wants to keep a work, and all its
> >  derivatives, free, anti-TPM is required to close a loophole created
> >  by TPM and the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA. Together, those
> >  two can be used to create a proprietary fork. And people who want
> >  copyleft protection to prevent proprietary forking need some sort of
> >  anti-tpm clause.
>
> Greg, you keep pressing a point that's been disproved. The Debian
> parallel distribution concept removes the "loophole" you keep talking
> about, and it does so without imposing *use restrictions* on the
> end-user.  Which is a really big deal -- at least to Debian and free
> software users.
>
> Even the GPLv3 -- despite a harsh anti-TPM stance -- would appear to
> permit this kind of parallel distribution.
>
> If your objection were true, free software would hardly exist anymore,
> because of "binary forks" (i.e. because the binary version isn't
> readable, therefore equivalent to TPM), but it's just *not* a problem,
> because the parallel distribution requirement for source code solves it.
> We've been doing this for 15+ years, and it still works.
>
> In order to prove (to me, anyway) that parallel TPM/non-TPM distribution
> will have additional problems above and beyond parallel binary/source
> distribution, you need to express how TPM is different (in practical
> terms) from binary.
>
> AFAICT, the only real difference is *intent*: the binary is unreadable
> because that's a practical necessity of running code in anything like
> reasonable timescales, while TPM is unreadable precisely to avoid
> understanding the content.  But in practice, we often find binary
> distribution being used as TPM (in fact, I suspect that where the TPM
> folks got the idea), while TPM is -- as some have pointed -- a practical
> technical necessity for access on some platforms.
>
> Seems to me that we have convergence: TPM <-> binary and source <->
> non-TPM. They may have different provenances, but in both legal and
> technical applications, they are pretty much the same.
>
> IF (as you suggest) this analogy is broken somehow (so that logic and
> practical experience based on 15+ years of binary/source distribution
> under the GPLv2 and similar copyleft licenses will not apply), where's
> the fundamental difference that I'm not seeing?

Here is a plan that I don't like and would like to prevent.

Write a game for a TPM platofrm. Use my BY-SA works in the game. Paralled 
distribution of my works seperately. Game can only play on the bad platform. 
So, is there some way to require parallel distribution (working mind you) of 
the whole project? (I hope this is a little clearer than mud.)
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145