Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> On (12/10/06 13:39), Greg London wrote:
>> > I haven't had time to study this in detail and perhaps I ought to.  Is
>> > the basis of dispute documented somewhere in digestible form?
>>
>> My "short short anti-tpm" explanation is here:
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004284.html
>>
>> Terry has one up on the archives that's even more to the point,
>> and likely better explained, but the above post is at least
>> the entire problem summed up in one email.
>
> So is the Debian objection based on allowing DRM locally?

The "anti-TPM" clause allows users to apply TPM to a work,
but it does not allow them to distribute
that TPM'ed version of the work. I'm not sure if that's
what you mean by "locally" or maybe I'm just over parsing your text.

Parallel distribution allows people to apply TPM for a specific
platform, and it allows them to distribute that TPM'd version
as long as they distribute a non-TPM, "Parallel", version.

The problem is that if a platform -only- plays TPM'ed works,
then parallel distribution allows the manufacturer (or someone
willing to license the rights to apply the manufacturer's DRM)
to monopolize the work on the TPM-only platform.

Greg

-- 
Take the Courage Vow
http://www.couragevow.com/
Pass it on.