Updating the Creative Commons Licenses

There is already an anti-DRM clause in the Creative Commons licenses which reads like this:

What is proposed are some amendments to clarify the language, but some, particularly in the Debian camp, worried that the language in the draft was inconsistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and instead proposed a kind of parallel distribution clause, in order to give programmers freedom to code for both open and closed systems.

Creative Commons project lead Mia Garlick opened the topic up for discussion. Some find it ridiculous to argue that the way to promote freedom is by allowing DRM, with its potential to take CC works and close them off. They see DRM as the fast track to destroying the share-alike community that Creative Commons authors are choosing to be a part of. The whole point of having such a license, after all, is precisely to avoid the sort of total freedom to do whatever you wish with the work, as would be possible by the author choosing to release into the public domain. As one comment put it, allowing DRM on CC'd works in the name of freedom is like saying the way to promote democracy is to vote in a dictator.

And so the upgrading to CC version 3.0 is going through a similar discussion as the GPLv3. Because of the opposition, the dual license idea isn't currently in the draft, as Garlick explained:

It's a fascinating discussion, and polite. If you wish to join in, here's where you go. You must subscribe to post a comment.

To get up to speed on what has already been discussed, here's a PDF that summarizes the discussion so far, along with Creative Commons' reactions to various suggestions, available here.

The Debian point of view, as far as I can see, is being expressed by Evan Prodromou, and the contrary view by many, but outstandingly by Rob Meyers and Greg London. You can find the archives by author here. My best suggestion would be to start here, and just click on "next message" for a while to follow the discussion in a straight line. At that starting link, London suggests making sure "DRM can't be used to take a work private or set someone up as sole source for DRM-versions of works," and Meyers answers Prodromou's expressed concerns about "licensees being free to distribute works in their format of choice." Prodromou expresses this worry:

He amplifies in this comment:

Of course, that's when the discussion gets really interesting. Meyers points out:

When one comment states, "That's why pleas for DRM are *not* pleas for user freedom", Prodromou argues,

To which London responds:

Another issue, and again this is identical to efforts in GPLv3, is to internationalize the license. The CC proposed solution is this, according to the August announcement:

And finally, there is discussion on just what the definition of "noncommercial" is.

I would suggest that you take the time to read all the comments themselves in August and September, though, and not just rely on the PDF summary, as there is already a comment indicating the summary didn't get every point precisely as the commenter intended. Besides, figuring out the appropriate response to DRM is a very important task, one the community needs to get right.