Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
  • Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:41:09 -0500

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page