Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 04 December 2006 04:16 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > With parallel distribution, DRM doesn't create incompatible pools.  The
> > unencumbered version always allows individuals to take the work back to
> > the lingua franca of no DRM.
>
> If you really believe this, then you haven't been paying as much
> attention to this discussion as you claim to have.
>
> It has been clearly demonstrated that such pools are created by a TPM+PD
> clause: one for each DRM-locked platform.

Terry, in fairness, I think you may misunderstand his use of the word pool. I 
think I see things as he does. With PD, the pool of "works" remains one for 
say BY-SA works. While multiple variations of SA licenses would create 
incompatible pools unless language was included as a way around it.

It is the non-tpm copy that keeps the pool united. (Until we can't buy any 
devices that can work with the non-tpm works.)

Two way transfer between pools would defeat the purpose as far as the 
monopoly 
behaviour. One way from monopoly-TPM-OK to monopoly-TPM-not-OK, or however 
the line is drawn, could work but would go against the wishes of those 
applying their choice of license?

>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

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