Development of Creative Commons licenses

[MJ Ray <mjr AT phonecoop.coop>]

rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>:
> > 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 anti-DRM clause is not like an airbag.  It's like avoiding all 
showroom dual-fuel cars because they are currently less safe than some 
unifuel cars.  It is annoying in many ways and will be ineffective in 
the long-term.

[...]
> 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.

Yes, fight it.  Use legal judo similar to the way copyleft fights 
copyright.

> We need hardware, software and content to make the case that there is an
> alternative to DRM.

Yes!  We do not need licensing to make the case!  Especially not by 
suggesting that DRM is so compelling that we need to try to prohibit it 
entirely.

Really, TPM-bans are like if an early GNU project had decided that it 
should ban compiled code, because users can't edit compiled code easily 
and decompilation is illegal in some places.  It is missing the forest 
for the trees.

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

Equally, this is not the time for Debian to concede free software, no 
matter how much some CC supporters currently think it would help them.
(Why does this even need saying?  It's unhelpful entrenchment.)

> > 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.

I think Evan was broadly correct in his description.  The reasoning in 
reply is flawed and does not prevent parallel distribution, else it 
would mean that debian's binary packages remove freedoms too.  They do 
not, because we require that users can get the sources too.

> 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.

That is true for copyright in general, as well as trademarks, software 
patents, non-disclosure agreements and yet all of those are covered by 
debian-legal and the DFSG.  The DFSG is not limited to technological 
constraints and I doubt most of debian-legal has missed that.

> 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.

It's unfair to compare *drafting* of one document with *passing* of 
another.  Both the DMCA and DFSG were drafted and presented to their 
ratifying voters during 1997.  Furthermore:
  DMCA passed by Representatives on 4 August 1998.
  DFSG Version 1.1 passed by DDs on 26 April 2004.
I think it's obvious that the clarification of the DFSG is more recent.

In my opinion, the main reason DRM is not mentioned explicitly is that 
it is already adequately covered by the points on integrity and 
non-discrimination.

[...]
> > 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.

What limits are there on the licensor saying what the licensee does not 
need to do?  When is the licensee no longer free to adapt the work to 
their needs?

DRM-bans are micromanagement of a type that should not be acceptable in 
a free culture licence, like anti-church and no-nuclear-workers clauses: 
those have strong advocates too, but are not in the common ground.

> If you cannot parallel distribute then the 
> right to do so is pointless.

So prohibit distribution when one cannot parallel distribute.  That 
would be fine by me.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray - see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request