Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

On 21/05/14 12:41 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 11:31:08 -0700 Rob Myers wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> But responses to ETMs should be effective, and parallel distribution is
>> not. It should not be accepted in compatible licenses.
> 
> I respectfully disagree: I am convinced that parallel distribution
> *should* be acceptable in compatible licenses.
> 
> I won't repeat my reasoning here, but some of you will sure recall that
> I have recommended to allow parallel distribution in the CC licenses
> themselves [1].
> 
> [1] 
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2013-September/007415.html

That objection is based on a misapplication of the DFSG that would lead
to the GPL being regarded as non-free. At its root is the mistaken
belief that DRM is a technological rather than a legal phenomenon.

I don't find Anthony's objection that NC is more restrictive than SA
logically sound. Creative Commons chose to produce diverse license
modules that embody separate traits. We can argue that NC should not
exist because SA does just as easily and just as wrongly.

NC's existence and DRM's expression as technology have no bearing on
whether SA should address copyright circa 1998 rather than sticking to
1976. Parallel distribution is a capitulation to the very restrictions
that SA exists to address. It is a backdoor in SA, an admission of
defeat, an exception for the benefit of the enclosing forces that SA
exists to resist. It should not be accepted.