Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 06:03 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Monday 04 December 2006 10:12 pm, Greg London wrote:
> >> Any word from Creative Commons about changing
> >> the basic CC-Attribution license so that it allows DRM?
> >>
> >> Since CC-BY allows proprietary forking,
> >> I see no reason to disallow proprietary DRM.
> >
> > There is a reason though in that it would allow the restrictions on the
> > original works as well as the derivatives. Certainly no reason not to
> > allow it for derivatives. Unless someone really is out to use CC as a
> > weapon against DRM. I seem to be the only one who might be cool with that
> > thought.
> >
> > No reason not to allow it on NC works either as DRM-Dave will not be able
> > to work his monopoly-fu because of the NC clause.
>
> I disagree.  NC isn't always a substitute for an anti-DRM clause.
>
> It may be more a theoretical than a practical possibility, but I can at
> least imagine a DRM Dave who acts wholly non-commercially.  Maybe a
> religious organization that wants to use DRM to prevent people of other
> religions from reading or distorting their texts, or some such.

Sorry to post this on-list, but hasn't it been pointed out here on a cc list 
without contradiction that religious organizations are not considered NC for 
the purposes of the NC clause?

If they did not want distorting, ND would fit the bill. No?

Also, please, if it were their own texts, they could do what they like no 
matter what the CC license says.

If DRM Dave makes an entirely original work, are you putting forward that the 
wording of the CC licenses would prevent him from doing as he wishes with his 
own works if he released them under a CC license?

Input from a CC lawyer would be appreciated on this question if James says 
yes.

>
> James

all the best,

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