Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

I don't know why I didn't think of this before.
Folks who want parallel distribution should
switch to CC-BY. And all the debates go away.

Parallel distribution allows people to
use DRM-only hardware to take content private,
and allows DRM-Dave to monopolize the content
and be sole source provider of DRM-enabled
works that play on his DRM-only hardware,
to the point that Dave could charge people
for the right to play CC-SA works on his
DRM-only hardware.

Since the parallel-distribution folks are
effectively allowing a proprietary fork,
they should simply switch to CC-BY and be
done with it.

I have already suggested that the DRM clauses
should be completely removed from the CC-BY
license, since it allows proprietary forking,
so there's no reason to disallow proprietary
forking via DRM.

People who want a license that protects
the CONTENT from proprietary forking,
should use CC-SA with the
anti-drm-local-authorization clause.

And everyone's happy.

Since par-dist people have no problem with
proprietary forking with DRM, just punt the
damn thing and switch to CC-BY.

For people who think the content needs to
be PROTECTED, CC-SA should maintain the
anti-drm-local-authorization clause.

Can CC remove the DRM clause from the CC-BY
license? Then those who wish to allow
proprietary forking via DRM can use CC-BY
and this issue will be settled.

Thank you.

Greg London