Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

I am coming back online after a few days with only very sporadic 
computer time.  I'm also mindful of the intensity of discussion among a 
small number of people, so I'm only going to pick out a very few things 
from the interesting points people have made in the interim.

Terry Hancock wrote:
> That is probably a natural consequence of the CC's consignment of legal
> detail to experts, implied by the whole concept of the "human readable"
> "deeds" versus the "legal code", as well as its focus on artists, who
> are likely to be dismissive of legal detail. I have some ambivalence
> about this: I think it's fair enough to represent the CC licensing to
> recipients of works in this way, but I think anybody actually applying
> these licenses to their own works should take the time to read the
> actual licenses.

As a lawyer, I'm ambivalent about it, too.  Given that the law is 
complicated, ambiguous, and often bad, any solution will be at best 
second-best.

> The most solid argument so far is that it represents a loss of end-user
> freedoms, in exchange for preserving copyleft, and that this is perhaps
> an unacceptable trade. 

As a lawyer, I'll also point out that "copyleft" is not itself an 
unambiguous concept.  It's a principle that could be implemented in 
different ways, some of which are inconsistent with each other.  This 
matters because . . .

> However, this is equivalent to concluding that
> the GPL is too restrictive because of copyleft: end users are restricted
> from distributing the software linked or otherwise combined with
> proprietary software. Surely that *is* a restriction on the end-user, so
> MIT/BSD licenses are "more free" for the end user.

. . . I do not believe that adding a parallel distribution clause to the 
anti-DRM clause compromises the copyleft principle.  Some of you 
strongly disagree with me about this, I know.  But I am not advocating 
that the BY-SA license abandon a copyleft principle.  I am arguing, 
believe it or not, that adding a parallel distribution clause would more 
effectively implement copyleft.

This distinction doesn't matter to the substance of our discussion. 
Explanations of why parallel distribution inhibits (or doesn't inhibit) 
freedom are equally valid no matter whether one describes it as a pro- 
or anti-copyleft position.  I'm just making this point to emphasize that 
I'm defending the parallel distribution clause in good faith, because I 
think it is not only good for freedom, but good for freedom in the way 
that copyleft cares about.

James