Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name>]

On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 20:01 +0100, Rob Myers wrote:
> Actual users of CC licenses are overwhelmingly against 
> DRM.

If I'm not mistaken, this list is about evenly split on the matter. I
doubt that many CC licensors are aware of the anti-DRM clause or even
DRM in general. I *am* pretty sure that there are quite a few who are
concerned that CC-licensed works can't be included in Debian. (That is,
that CC licenses don't have the Debian Seal of Approval.)

The anti-DRM clause in the CC licenses has done little if anything to
stop the advance of DRM. The battle over this technology is important
but Open Content licenses are the wrong place to fight it.

>  I'm afraid that Debian Legal's arguments in favor of DRM are 
> fundamentally flawed, as I have argued at length on this list and elsewhere.

I think we have some different fundamentals going on here. Our
fundamentals are the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which insist on a
user's right to experiment with various platforms for any reason. We
understand that some licensors want to ensure that downstream users have
the same freedoms as licensors, and we accept copyleft licenses.

Parallel distribution is the copyleft of DRM. It requires that licensees
ensure the freedom of their downstream users by making unencumbered
versions of works available, but leaves licensees the freedom to
experiment with formats, too.

DRM is not evil in and of itself. It is wrong when it keeps people from
fully participating in their creative life. Parallel distribution makes
sure that developers can experiment with closed platforms and that users
can copy, modify, and re-distribute, too.

~Evan

-- 
Evan Prodromou -- http://evan.prodromou.name/

"By God! I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart
of on the same terms." -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"