Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
  • Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:17:04 -0500

Greg London wrote:
On Wed, 2006-29-11 at 21:20 +0000, Rob Myers wrote:

Since the dominant argument against parallel distribution on this
list seems to boil down to a critique that the clause provide a way
to sidestep copyleft,
The clause provides a way of removing people's rights.
That's simply not true. Nobody loses any rights from having the clause
added, and your net freedom is greater with a parallel distribution
clause than without it.

Don't get too tripped up in the language.
The whole thing must be looked at in the context of the timeline.

Start at the point when Copyleft/ShareAlike licenses were created.
DRM wasn't considered at the time.

Move forward in time until DRM is considered an issue for
Copyleft and ShareAlike licenses.

Why was it considered an issue to Copyleft/ShareAlike licenses?
Because DRM allows platform monopolies, which allow someone
to effectively take a work private on a hardware platform.

This timeline is wrong. The anti-DRM clause has been part of the CC licenses since version 1.0.

See, e.g.:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode

I don't think your points depend on the timeline, but this seems like a detail worth getting right.

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page