Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 04/21/2012 04:00 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
>>
>> I just want to make sure that we fight against DRM with Free
>> restrictions, rather than with non-free restrictions.
>> Otherwise, the cure is worse than the disease.
>
> Disallowing DRM-encumbered distribution is non a non-free restriction.
>
> It is the prevention of a non-free restriction.
>
> Assuming copyleft and anti-tivoisation are not non-free restrictions.

What exactly is "anti-tivoisation"?  My understanding is that the
version of it which actually made it into the GPLv3 was not a non-free
restriction, but there were several previously proposed versions of it
which were.

I can't find the part which prohibits DRM.  I see the part that
"permits circumvention", section 3.  And I see the part which requires
"parallel distribution", section 6 (especially "Installation
Information").  But I don't see the part which outright prohibits DRM.
 Am I missing it?

And with that said, I don't think that section 6 is appropriate for
CC-BY-SA.  Because CC-BY-SA *does not require source code
distribution*.  Requiring "parallel distribution" of a
DRM-unencumbered version only makes sense in the context of requiring
parallel distribution of source code.

Otherwise I don't even understand how we are supposed to define DRM.
It has been said before that a source code requirement is completely
different from an anti-DRM requirement.  That's interesting, because
the DMCA strongly suggests that reverse engineering (extracting source
code from a binary) is circumvention.  See 17 USC section 1201(f).

If you want to read CC-BY-SA 3.0 strictly, I'd say distribution of
binaries is already prohibited.  Compilation *is* a "technological
measure[] on the Work that restrict[s] the ability of a recipient of
the Work ... to exercise of the rights granted to that recipient under
the terms of the License".  Granted, that's apparently not what is
intended.  But in CC-BY-SA 4.0, shouldn't we say what we mean?