Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Benj. Mako Hill" <mako AT atdot.cc>]

<quote who="Terry Hancock" date="Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 03:11:00AM -0600">
> If the platform owner does not provide such a key, then the work is
> shut off from that platform, and the platform is worse for it, which
> is politically good. (It may be insignificantly good, as you have
> argued, but it is not bad).

This political good, insignificant or not, is balanced by the fact
that there is a cost in terms of limiting some users from taking
advantage of *any* of the freedoms of the work.

> This is simply a case of a "liberty or death" clause, no different
> than section 7 of the GPLv2: if you can't distribute in a way that
> preserves user freedoms, then you can't distribute at all. That's a
> basic aspect of copyleft.

A liberty or death clause says that the work must be distributed under
the terms of the license or not at all. We all agree with that. That's
why we are debating those terms right now. Just as the GPLv3
committees are debating the DRM language in the GPLv3.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako AT atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS