Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.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.

But Dave isn't trying to monopolize his platform,
so why would it be "locked tight"?
If he's willing to allow people to apply DRM,
why wouldn't he make his player support open formats
or transparent DRM?

And if this is simply to grandfather in older hardware
platforms that don't support open formats or transparent DRM,
but if Dave is willing to allow folks to apply DRM to their
own content, then he could give away the DRM tool and let
people do it locally.

This is already allowed by the Anti-TPM clause.

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

I don't understand how this is any different than
the current anti-tpm clause which allows local DRM.
If folks are agreeable to the above then why are
they in an uproar over the current anti-TPM clause.

They are almost identical.

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