Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

>> The question is whether the distribution comes with a
>> gate keeper that SELECTIVELY allows SOME to exercise a
>> right but NOT others.
>
> Television comes with the gatekeeper of an FCC license (in the U.S.).
> If you do not have one, you cannot legally broadcast.

Yeah, and Dave will need a business permit to manufacture
and sell SnowGlobes. So what? It has nothing to do with the
content being transmitted or whether the viewers get the
same rights or not. You're talking about a legal restriction
being applied to Dave before he can broadcast, not something
that lets Alice copy the work, but prevents Bob.

Red Herring.

> In your framework, the parallel copy is the source code.
> Yes, you distribute a DRM-encumbered "object code" version,
> but you also make the "source code" version available --
> a version that provides the necessary practical support for
> all of the relevant freedoms.

Except the freedom to play it on Dave's DRM-only hardware.

Because of that, parallel-distribution is not equivalent
to "source-code" requirements.

What good is source code if you are legally prohibited from
ever compiling it on the computer you run it on?

Dave sells some specialized computer hardware.
He uses some GNU-GPL code, compiles it for his platform,
and makes the source code available.

But then what if Dave goes to the Government and pays a few
"representatives" to pass a law that says
"No one may compile code for Dave's hardware without Dave's permission".

That's the anti-circumvention clause kicking in.

Even if you have source, even if you have parallel distribution,
if you are legally disallowed from compiling the source so that
you can play it on the hardware Dave built, Dave is leveraging
FLOSS software in a way that puts him at an unfair advantage
over the rest of the FLOSS community.

> I think that this may be an essential point of our disagreement.
> You are most concerned that everyone have identical freedoms in
> a ShareAlike work.

Yes. And why do you think that it is important?

Hint: it isn't because I want to use cc licenses as a "weapon".

Why would I think it is important?

Hint: it isn't "just because" either.

Get this question right and maybe this conversation will
make some progress.


> ShareAlike does not refer to the particular rights and
> abilities Alice and Bob have.  It means that if Wally
> distributes a derivative work, he must Share it under
> the Alike license that he received the original under.

But why is that a requirement of the license?
Because we simply want to propagate the same license?
Because we want to perform an experiment in memes and
use CC licenses as the propagation thing?

There is a WHY to the CC license that is not in the legal code
but is in the name of the license and in the intent of CC.

Why? To enable a FLOSS community. To provide a license that people
who've never met each other can contribute their content to a
bigger community and use those works in new and better ways.

Copyleft does nothing other than to keep the players in the
FLOSS community on an even playing field as much as possible.

The GNU-GPL allows you to distribute a binary, but you must
include source code so that you can compile the source code
ON THE SAME PLATFORM.

Do you think GNU would allow Dave to distribute a binary
and release source code if there were some legal loophole
that prevented anyone from compiling code on Dave's hardware?

No. Why?

Because it no longer keeps all the players in the FLOSS community
on equal footing. Dave suddenly has a monopoly on his hardware
platform that puts him at an advantage over everyone else.

Alice can't compile code on Dave's machine because Dave
got congress to pass a law that says Dave has the exclusive
right to compile on Dave's magical mystery machine.

That's DRM. That's TPM.

Parallel distribution does not follow the metaphor of source code
because there is no equivalent law for compiling like there
is for applying or circumventing DRM.

The field is no longer level in this scenario.

Parallel distribution fails to protect the community the same
way that source code protects the GNU GPL community because
parallel distribution applied to DRM fails to address the
fact that the Anti-Circumvention Clause of the DMCA allows
Dave to operate at a distinct advantage over the community
that is not possible in the GNU-GPL community with regard
to compiling the source code on Dave's hardware.

Parallel Distribution fails to protect the FLOSS community
the same way Source Requirements protects the community
because there is no "Compile Restriction" that is equivalent
to DRM Gate Keepers. There is nothing legal to prevent you from
compiling on the same platform.

Greg

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