Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Friday 13 October 2006 12:39 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > 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.

And that situation is one that at least some of us who put our works under 
BY-SA are not happy with. (I think, I know I am one who doesn't like that 
idea.)
>
> Greg

all the best,

drew
-- 
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!
Then put it under BY-SA, like I plan to do with mine.