Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>:

> I think the fact that GPLv3 would be as prohibitive as the proposed
> CC-By-SA-3 language is interesting, and pretty important from Debian's PoV.

I do not beliebve that this is the case. GPL-3 allows you to use or write DRM.
You just cannot prevent people removing it or creating replacements.

One solution for CC and Debian, based on the Scottish license language that MJ
Ray has mentioned, would be for CC to allow only ineffective DRM to be 
applied.
This would be DRM where blanket permission to circumvent has been given 
*by the
DRM vendor*, as is included in the GPL-3.

This would mean that GPL-3 DRM can be used on CC work, and would be a 
synergy of
the kind I have in mind between code and content. It would also not restrict
Free Software hackers from using CC work freely even with those DRM systems,
which would answer Debian's concerns.

> I don't if it's been mentioned here, but of course, Debian has also
> expressed doubts about the GPLv3 being compatible with the DFSG.

Their concerns about the first draft have been considered in the production of
the second.

If they still find the second draft incompatible with the DFSG they are
confusing "use" with "distribution" in the same way that the Linux Kernel
Hackers are.

> OTOH,
> we know from a political perspective that if the FSF adopts GPLv3, then
> Debian is going to bend or change the rules to admit it, no matter
> whether it meets the existing DFSG.  CC may need to insist on the same
> respect, or not play.
>
> Another interesting point is that people fighting the anti-DRM clause
> (including specifically Linus Torvalds) in GPLv3 have said that the GPL
> is the wrong place to fight DRM, preferring to apply anti-DRM clauses to
> artistic works (as the CC licenses do), while recently we've seen
> arguments here that the CC licenses for artistic works are the wrong
> place (and presumeably that it's better to do it in the licenses for the
> software?).

Do you have a source for Linus's comments? Possibly we should get Linus 
on here?

> Clearly we all need to decide who does need to do the fighting and how,
> or we'll wind up with no one doing it, which would be the worst
> outcome.  As things sit, I find I'm agreeing with doing it in the CC
> licenses.

If Debian are proved right that CC licenses cannot prevent DRM and will only
reduce freedom, that can be tackled when it becomes a problem. But the genie
cannot be put back in the bottle. A bit like that official trademark Debian
have that isn't DFSG-free.

- Rob.