Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

> 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.

There is a lot of similarity between

binary executable with parallel distribution of source code
and
DRM copy of work with parallel distribution of clear copy.

I might even be willing to go over to a parallel-copy
clause in CC licenses, rather than a no-DRM-at-all clause.

But the difference I see is this: TPM gives people
control over a work who didn't actually have to do
anything to that work, except broadcast it. That's
about as obnoxious a law as you can get, except to
blatantly spell it out in the broadcaster's law being
proposed that I mentioned a couple of messages ago.

And I'm not convinced that given the loop holes and
special priviledges that TPM and DMCA create now,
that they couldn't be changed in the future to create
some other right that CC licenses cannot forsee now.

And the best way to protect against DRM Dave using
DRM to get control over ShareAlike Sam's work
and restrict Sam's work in ways Sam would not have
wanted if he knew the license would have allowed it,
is to prohibit DRM Dave from applying DRM to the
work in the first place. Ever.

Greg

-- 
Wikipedia and the Great Sneetches War
http://www.somerightsreserved.org