Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 04 December 2006 06:20 pm, Greg London wrote:
> 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.

PD proponents, is Greg right? Do you specifically want to permit the DRM-Dave 
scenario or  is that scenario juts something that you feel can't be avoided 
when you want to get the benefits you see with the PD plan?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greg London

all the best,

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