Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting 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 disagree but haven't time to go back through dozens of emails so I will have
to say OK. :-)

> I
> doubt that many CC licensors are aware of the anti-DRM clause or even
> DRM in general.

Ignorance is not acquiescence, nor is it protection. There are campaigns to
raise awareness of DRM.

> 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.)

I find it sad but I would rather that the CC licenses are effective.

> The anti-DRM clause in the CC licenses has done little if anything to
> stop the advance of DRM.

And the airbags in my car have done nothing to protect me in an accident yet.

> The battle over this technology is important

It is, and it is too early to concede it in the CC licenses.

> but Open Content licenses are the wrong place to fight it.

DRM affects cultural work, and software licenses cannot volunteer to 
fight this
for individual cultural works. Free Culture licenses are a place to fight it.
We need hardware, software and content to make the case that there is an
alternative to DRM.

This is not the time for CC to concede DRM, no matter how much it would help
Debian.

> >  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.

That is a mis-description of the DFSG. The DFSG insist on a user's 
right to use
*software *. DRM can prevent users from doing this. DRM therefore removes your
DFSG rights. In particular it removes freedom 1.

The point that the Debian-Legal has missed is that DRM is not given its 
force by
technology. It is given its force by law. The DFSG were drafted before 
the DMCA
was passed. That they are silent on newer developments in copyright law 
such as
DRM is bitrot, not principle.

> 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.

This is not true in practice, despite the cosmetic similarities. If you can
parallel distribute you do not need the right to remove other people's rights
with DRM. If you cannot parallel distribute then the right to do so is
pointless.

> 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.

This, as I've explained, is fundamentally different from GPL-3. You cannot
"experiment with formats" under a CC license without being captured by DRM in
the same way you can under CPL-3.

> DRM is not evil in and of itself. It is wrong when it keeps people from
> fully participating in their creative life.

So how about we add a permission to use DRM to the licenses that no-one can
actually use? ;-)

> Parallel distribution makes
> sure that developers can experiment with closed platforms and that users
> can copy, modify, and re-distribute, too.

But not allowing it doesn't prevent "developers" from trapping themselves on
closed platforms. They can hack away to their heart's content, well at least
until they try to move to another platform and lose all their work. They don't
need CC work in order to do so, and if they do then that has implications for
the work that it shouldn't remain silent on.

- Rob.