Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 02 December 2006 08:33 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > 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.

Do you need to understand it if it is acceptable to them? Do you object? Can 
it hurt?

all the best,

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