Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 21/05/14 11:02 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
> 
> ETMs:
> 
> This restriction should not need to be present in a candidate license
> in the same form as in the CC license, especially because we don't
> have evidence of its effectiveness here. Candidate licenses should
> have an approach, but not necessarily the same one--for example,
> allowing parallel distribution.

SA has taken two different approaches to ETMs, and there certainly may
be other interesting and useful approaches. Some of them may be
improvements over existing approaches and may even be worth adopting for
future versions of BY-SA. So the requirement that other licenses should
take *exactly* the same approach to ETMs as SA would not be prudent.

But responses to ETMs should be effective, and parallel distribution is
not. It should not be accepted in compatible licenses.

Allowing ETMs to be applied to an instance of a ShareAlike work removes
the permissions granted by the license *for that instance of the work*.
When all you have is that instance of the work, the license has been
effectively circumvented for you. And you won't be the only one.

Dual distribution is therefore undesirable both practically (it is more
efficient to have a single usable version of a work distributed) and
politically (the existence of a pool of work that refuses or defeats
ETMs both demonstrates opposition to them and provides a reason for them
not to be imposed universally).

Please explicitly exclude parallel distribution as an acceptable
response to ETMs in compatible licenses.