Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 02 December 2006 07:56 pm, Greg London wrote:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004634.html
>
> >Use of DRM on a redistributed CC work is okay ONLY IF:
> >1) The work is also made available in an unDRMed parallel version, and
> >2) Everyone is free to apply the DRM.
> >
> >I would moderately prefer the straightforward parallel distribution
> >clause to this one.  I would much prefer this version to a license
> >without a parallel distribution.  (And I would consider a license
> >without an anti-DRM clause at all unacceptable.)
>
> Now I'm totally confused.
>
> >2) Everyone is free to apply the DRM.
>
> This can only occur if DRM-Dave gives everyone permission to
> apply DRM to the content that he provided.
>
> If DRM-Dave is willing to do this, then he isn't trying to
> monopolize his platform, 

correct.

> and his platform should support 
> either transparent DRM (DRM that simply tells the platform
> to place no restrictions on the work) or open format content
> (text files, jpgs, mpegs files, etc.) and then it won't be
> a problem anyway.

not necessarily, anyone could put it on, but once it is on, it could be 
locked 
tight.
>
> Also, the anti-TPM clause as it is currently proposed
> allows local application of DRM to CC-SA works.
> This means if Dave allows (2), then you can apply
> DRM to your local CC-SA copy and load it to your platform
> under the current proposed language for the license.

The proposal being discussed is to allow Paralled Distribution in cases where 
Dave lets anyone apply DRM. So you could transfer a file with DRM and a plain 
copy together in cases where the person getting the files could put it on the 
plain one for themselves anyway.
>
> The only restriction with the Anti-TPM clause is
> that you cannot distribute that DRM version if
> that version has restricted rights.
>
> But you can use it locally on your hardware platform.
>
> The only thing you don't get out of the current
> anti-TPM clause is a parallel distribution copy.
>
> But if Dave is willing to allow people to apply DRM,
> then it isn't a problem. You just do it to your local copy.
>
> Yes?

Right, so in that case, it doesn't hurt to let you transfer an encumbered and 
a plain version together.

This may be an unnecessary thing to allow in this case, but is it a hurtful 
thing to allow?

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Sayings (Winner 2006)
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954