Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Javier Candeira wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> Can you point us to the recent relevant discussions?

OMG. You asked for it...

Mia Garlick's original post on v3:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003855.html

A New Hope:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003866.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003878.html

Debian Strikes Back:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003950.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-November/004511.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004175.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004209.html

Whoa Guys, Traffic! (position posts):
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004227.html

Debian Strikes Back Again:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004380.html

YA Revision to CC 3.0 (Mia Garlick):
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-October/004459.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-September/004027.html

Behind the Great Wall of Debian:

  (general reaction to CC3)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00155.html

  (misunderstanding of TPM restriction language)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00219.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/10/msg00009.html

  (I enter the fray)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/10/msg00055.html
  (NOTE: my claim that allowing TPM is "non-free" is too strong,
         what it is is "non-copyleft" -- somewhere down thread
         I acknowledge this error)

  (opinion on GFDL for comparison -- note that Debian officially
   voted to accept the earlier GFDL sometime back)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00123.html

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/01/msg00020.html

Return of Commons Sense?
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-September/004053.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-September/004057.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004598.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004601.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004602.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004603.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004654.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004678.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004703.html

Raprochement?
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004754.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-December/004784.html

Would you believe I still missed a few threads? :-O
Still, I think this should give a pretty complete picture of the
situation -- at the expense of a couple of days of reading. <sigh>

> Would that requirement also make GPL v3 non-DFSG compliant?

Different issues.

The opposition's position is that so-called "parallel distribution" of
clear text removes the threat of TPM closure of a free work. However,
Greg London demonstrated the falsehood of this belief. His original
post and several variants of the "DRM Dave" scenario appear in the
above discussions.

You might want to read my summary of this scenario here:

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/debian_and_the_creative_commons

The GPLv3, because it involves source distribution anyway, essentially
avoids this issue. The requirement becomes the inclusion of a "kernel
key" if any such key is required to compile working code for a given
platform (this is sometimes called the "anti-tivo-ization" clause).
Linus Torvalds has taken exception to this language, but Debian has not.

Regrettably, the GPLv3 solution doesn't appear to be workable or useful
for content. CC has always avoided a "source code" requirement, because
it is difficult to define what that requirement would be for many
different types of content (there would be much legal ambiguity and
resulting friction -- Debian already has regular problems with this with
software that tests the boundaries of what should be called 'source
code'. The situation is far more complex with artistic works.).

>>Fortunately, Debian has already approved the GNU Free Documentation
>>License (GFDL) which has an even stickier "in clear" distribution
>>requirement, so it would seem totally inconsistent for them to decide
>>against CC. 
> 
> Let's hope for consistency.

Yes, let's. :-)

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com