Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> Microsoft actually provides some GPLed software
> as part of Windows Services for Unix (and some
> other places too IIRC).  There are also other
> pieces free software in use in the main Windows
> distribution but they are under BSDish licenses
> rather than copyleft ones so aren't really
> relevant here.

It is relevant in one particular distinction.
GPLed software used by Microsoft does not allow
Microsoft to maintain a platform monopoly.
If Microsoft uses GPL'ed software, they must
distribute the source and Alice and Bob could
compile that source code on the very same platform
that Microsoft did.

DRM plus DMCA plus parallel distribution says
"screw it, it's a platform monopoly, and no one
will be able to play with the works on this platform
but through Dave, but it would be better to allow
Dave a platform monopoly so Alice and Bob can at least
listen to this music on Dave's player, than to prohibit
DRM to be used to create a platform monopoly, and
prevent poor Alice and Bob from listening to this
music on Dave's player."

The important thing here, apparently, is that
Alice and Bob MUST listen to the work on DAVE's player.
Nothing else will satisfy.

And the parallel distribution folks seem willing to
chuck "equality among the community" in exchange for
some neat convenience.

Microsoft cannot use GPL code to maintain a platform
monopoly enforced by DRM and protected by DMCA.
DRM-Only Dave can. And parallel distribution gives
him explicite permission to do so, all because Alice
and Bob are jumping up and down, eager to play Sam's
sharealike music on their DRM-only player they bought
from Dave.

And they don't seem to care what it does to Sam, or the
rest of the community who created teh works.


>> The point of copyleft is to protect the gift economy
>> from proprietary competition. Competition is proprietary
>
> That's a very strong statement.  I'm not sure that
> competition is in general the right word here:
> competition is fine, it's taking works out
> of the copyleft system that poses a problem.

And a DRM-only platform, where all content must be purchased
through Dave's DRM-enabling website for a low low price per song,
is on what side of the copyleft system?

I say it's out of the copyleft system.
Dave is the gatekeeper and no one can DRM a work
but by his permission, and there is no committment
that says if Dave is granting permission today,
that he must grant permission ten years from now.

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