Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Francesco Poli
<invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
> I think this is very awkward: you *can* distribute CC-by-sa-licensed
> material in a format that hampers modifications (while keeping your
> preferred form for modification for yourself), but you *cannot*
> absolutely apply even the weakest form of DRM, not even if you make
> DRM-unencumbered copies available in parallel!
>
> I acknowledge that DRM is worse than source secrecy, but anyway,
> what I described above looks like a sort of self-contradiction...

This part I don't agree with.  In fact, it's not clear to me that
there is any difference at all between source secrecy and DRM.  A
source-obfuscated work arguably *is* an "effective technological
measure".  (As is a work which is encrypted, for instance, for
transfer over https.)  And with the new termination clause, a minor
technical error in compliance terminates the license entirely.