Support Parallel Distribution Now!

My friend James Grimmelmann, currently a Resident Fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and an Adjunct Professor at New York Law School, contacted me recently because he was concerned that it doesn’t seem likely that parallel distribution language is going to make it in latest draft of the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses. The issues and arguments around parallel distribution are complex but James and I both think that the status quo represents a mistake and a lost opportunity by CC. As a result, we have written a position statement that tries to explain the issues simply, make a case for parallel distribution, and answer some of the criticism that has been leveled against the idea.

Prompted by conversations with hackers from Debian (myself included), CC lawyers recommend new "parallel distribution" language at the beginning of the CC 3.0 license revision process as a way to fix unanticipated effects of the current CC anti-DRM clause. Immediate negative reactions by a number of people demoted the language to an issue for debate. While the resulting debate has been both lengthy and heated, it has not involved more than a small handful of voices or led to any firm decisions. Time is running out for the drafts of CC’s 3.0 licenses and unless something changes, the status quo — no parallel distribution — will remain. As a result, it’s extremely important that users of CC licenses try to familiarize themselves with the issue and to make their voice heard.

James and I feel the lack of a parallel distribution language in the CC licenses represents a failure by CC to live up to its own ideals and to do what is in the best interest of the users of CC licenses. Please read our position statement, pass the link and article around to others, and make yourself heard either on the cc-licenses list by emailing cc-licenses@lists.ibiblio.org or by posting a response on the comments page in my wiki.

Finally, as a Debian developer, it’s important for me to say that I do not think that the lack of parallel distribution makes the CC licenses non-free under the DFSG — especially in light of the recent general resolution on the GFDL which deemed the GFDL, which contains language that is extremely similar to the current CC text, DFSG free. CC should use parallel distribution language because it is the right thing to do for the free culture movement and for the users of CC works and not because it will have any effect on the inclusion of CC BY and BY-SA works in Debian.

You can find the position statement at: http://wiki.mako.cc/ParallelDistribution

12 thoughts on “Support Parallel Distribution Now!”

  1. ————————————————-

    I’ve posted a summary statement of my issue with par-dist here:

    <a href=”http://www.somerightsreserved.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=433&Itemid=65″>http://www.somerightsreserved.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=433&Itemid=65</a&gt;

    The source code requirement for GPL gives you a parallel copy, but you are also able to compete directly, commercially, with the person who distributed the original binary. Parallel distribution with DRM gives you a copy of the content, but allows Dave exclusive commercial rights to sell the work on his platform. The rights to the work must transfer to everyone, and in this case, only Dave gets commercial rights to the work on his DRM-only hardware.

    This is a deal breaker.

    Greg London
    ————————————————

  2. —–
    (weird weird formatting. Posting again with separators)

    There is a business model in the GNU-GPL community where people take a work and release it under the GNU-GPL license. They (or a small group) do the entire application code. They do not accept outside contributions. They then license their work under GNU-GPL.

    And then they make their money by selling proprietary licenses to that very same code.

    For those of you who are willing to allow someone a commercial monopoly on some particular platform, I suggest that you take your content and do like the dual-licensers do. License your work CC-SA and contribute it to some larger community, and then when some proprietary company wants the exclusive rights to use that content on their DRM-Only hardware platform, dual license your content. Give the proprietary vendor a CC-BY license to use your work on their platform, let them have sole right to commercial advantage on that platform, and everyone should be happy.

    Oh, wait, you want EVERYONE to sign their rights away to this proprietary vendor????

    I think I see the problem….

    —–

  3. There is a business model in the GNU-GPL community where people take a work and release it under the GNU-GPL license. They (or a small group) do the entire application code. They do not accept outside contributions. They then license their work under GNU-GPL.

    And then they make their money by selling proprietary licenses to that very same code.

    For those of you who are willing to allow someone a commercial monopoly on some particular platform, I suggest that you take your content and do like the dual-licensers do. License your work CC-SA and contribute it to some larger community, and then when some proprietary company wants the exclusive rights to use that content on their DRM-Only hardware platform, dual license your content. Give the proprietary vendor a CC-BY license to use your work on their platform, let them have sole right to commercial advantage on that platform, and everyone should be happy.

    Oh, wait, you want EVERYONE to sign their rights away to this proprietary vendor????

    I think I see the problem….

    Greg London

    ——————————————————————————–

    Let’s ignore DRM for a second. Pretend it doesn’t exist. Say you’ve got some content. Any content. Pick something.

    Say it’s licensed CC-SA

    Say its something that thousands of people have contributed to over the course of years to get it to the point where it’s soemthing really great.

    Say, George Lucas comes along and discovers this content. He wants to put it in a movie. A major block buster movie.

    But he can’t do CC-SA because he can’t figure how to make the numbers work so that it will be a profitable block buster movie.

    So he comes to the community and makes an offer:

    “Look, I like your stuff, and I’d really like to put your stuff in my movie. But I can’t afford CC-SA. But I’ll tell you what. If you let me use your stuff in my movie and let me make the movie All Rights Reserved, I’ll give you any of the modifications I make to your stuff. You won’t get my whole movie, but you’ll get any modifications I make to your content. Deal?”

    And you are so damn eager to see your content in a block buster movie that you’re willing to toss Copyleft to the ditch.

    No one in the CC-SA community can afford to turn their stuff into a major block buster movie released in teh theaters because the distributers have a stranglehold on what goes into their pipe. Major theater owners get to pick from what their distributer offers them. And distributers only offer movies that will make them money.

    There is no way a CC-SA movie will ever be released in the current environment of the movie industry.

    But you’re willing to ditch copyleft and let Lucas have full copyright on his derivative work because you want to see your work on the big screen.

    That ain’t how it works, pigeon.

    You don’t get to sacrifice copyleft to get into a theater. You don’t get to sacrifice copyleft to get onto the community’s content on DRM-only hardware. You don’t get to sacrifice the community just because you want to see your content up on the big screen.

    You don’t get to sacrifice the community.

    You want your stuff in Lucas’s movie, then you can dual license it. Put your stuff under CC-SA and give it to the community. and simultaneously give Lucas a license to use your work in his film under CC-BY or whatever.

    There is no difference between the Lucas scenario above and DRM-Dave’s hardware, other than semantics.

    You are advocating escape clauses to copyleft simply to get the community’s content into proprietary channels, whether its a DRM-only player or a movie theater chain.

    You want to vote that with your wallet, go for it. Put a dual license on your content.

    There are people who write applications and release it under GNU-GPL and also sell the rights to put the code in a proprietary program.

    You want to do that, go for it.

    Just keep your hands the COMMUNITY’s wallet while you’re doing it.

    Greg London

  4. “Supporting a license change which specifically enables and encourages copyleft breakage is, IMHO,  ‘anti-copyleft’. I find it difficult to see how you can take exception to that classification.”

    First, it is unfair to claim that PD encourages copyleft breakage — even under your own definitions. Even the least generous interpretations of positions of PD proponents must acknowledge that any “copyleft breakage” is an acceptable (in the eyes of proponents) side effect and not a reason for PD.

    Second, I believe and have argued that copyleft does not require that we have technical ability to modify and redistribute software on every device that the work is displayed, viewed, or run as long as it can be modified on other, easily available devices. I think that is fully in line with the fact that we can, in good faith and fully in line with the principles of copyleft, consume copylefted goods on mobile phones and other portable devices.

    I would call a license that barred distribution to mobile phones or in an e-book reader format non-free? Would you? Are any of those positions anti-copyleft?

    You are arguing that any suggestion that, as a side effect of ensuring that users have the freedom to view or use works in more places, opens the possibility for a certain type of power disparity, it is anti-copyleft.

    But you are also using an ideosyncratic definition of copyleft and of copyleft breakage. If I fail to adopt your definition, you claim I am being illogical. If I adopt your definition, I am wrong by definition.

    In terms of source code, you bring up many common arguments against it. The GPL uses the term, “preferred form of modification.” Ask the author what they will use if they want to rework or modify their work. The answer, in the vast majority of the cases you have mentioned is clear. If the cost of reproduction is large, the GPL provides for charging for source at the cost of media and labor. If it’s an entire harddisk and a days labor, that’s fine.

    The reality is that movies, music, and more have been distributed under the GPL with no major problems. It’s not perfect. But it’s not perfect for software either (I can point you so several bugs in Debian where people are arguing about what the preferred form of modification really is).

  5. “To conflate support of PD with an anti-copyleft position is unjustified and unfair.”

    I’m sorry you feel that way, but you have not supported that position, whereas I (and others) have supported such “conflation” with logical argument.

    Greg’s case demonstrates that copyleft can be broken by allowing TPM, even with “PD” and since the players in the case have clear motivation to do so (and we have extant examples of people so motivated and who have demonstrated willingness to violate our “principles” for selfish ends), then it’s pretty clear that it not only can happen but will happen (if a PD clause were to be added).

    Supporting a license change which specifically enables and encourages copyleft breakage is, IMHO,  “anti-copyleft”. I find it difficult to see how you can take exception to that classification.

    There are of course, many reasons why one might reasonably take an anti-copyleft stance, and I have already given a fair nod to some of those (as with the GPL compatibility problem). I don’t claim that you are doing this to seek nefarious ends. However, your position most definitely puts “immediate freedom” (and convenience) ahead of “preservation of freedom” (i.e. you conclude that it’s more important to give users the convenience of downloading software with TPM already applied to it than to ensure that they do not get locked into a platform which denies their essential freedom to participate in free content creation).

    In fact, it’s a side-issue, but I personally am “anti-copyleft” in certain circumstances (specifically, I think that government-funded software — where the full cost of development is funded by taxpayer monies — should be distributed under a non-copyleft free license. Such product can then be incorporated into proprietary or copyleft projects at a later date).

    However, it’s important to understand what the introduction of TPM+PD to the CC licenses would mean.

    The worst thing that a non-TPM+PD CC license requires is that the user must apply the TPM themselves, rather than receiving the content already modified. This might be inconvenient, but free software developers can make it very easy if they really think it’s an important issue (and too difficult now).

    Proponents of TPM+PD have repeatedly brought up “pragmatic” issues of DRM platform adoption and the importance of free content “remaining relevant” in a world dominated by such platforms. But that is, of course, precisely the world in which allowing DRM with PD is most dangerous to continued freedom (drew makes this point by describing a world in which all of the platforms are DRM-only).

    “You don’t even need to distribute source! This, in my opinion, is a much more egregious parity violation.”

    In theory, your statement seems to make a certain amount of sense, but it falls apart when you look at specific types of work. Experience with digital arts quickly demonstrates that it is difficult even for artists to agree amongst themselves what constitutes “source”, let alone how to spell it out in a legally-enforceable way.

    Any source requirement would be some combination of meaningless, overly-burdensome, or ineffective — depending on the type of work in question.

    The truth is, that path leads to an enormous can of worms, and the CC took a very sensible decision in avoiding the whole issue.

    Indeed, the anti-TPM language is the closest thing that the CC can get to a source requirement which is legally meaningful (since the law has provided case precedents and definitions for what “TPM” — or “DRM” — means). We know that these are technologies specifically designed to obfuscate the content, so they are forbidden.

    It is important to remember that the Creative Commons is engaged in crafting licenses primarily intended for works of aesthetic, rather than functional, value, and most especially, not for “software” (in the narrow sense of the word, as compiled or interpreted computer instructions).

    A “source requirement” for a motion picture, recorded song, or digital painting would be extraordinarily complex even to specify as an ideal, let alone legally require. As such, it would be impossible to enforce such a requirement. Furthermore, it so happens, that it is generally unnecessary with such works to encourage re-use.

    Now, of course, it’s certainly more in keeping with the spirit of free-licensing to publish all of the footage from a film, or all of the layers, brushes, and/or other tools from a digital painting.  However, it’s also true that such requirements are extraordinarily burdensome: the compressed source code of software is usually similar in size to the binaries (e.g. Debian’s source distribution requires approximately the same number of disks as the binary), but there may be a hundred hours of footage for every hour on screen in a movie. Likewise, many artists would routinely “merge visible layers” in a painting, without thinking about the loss of editability (because they’re done with that part).

    Indeed, one of the things that became obvious to me, when considering what would be needed to re-work a free-licensed, live-action movie, was that truthfully, the actors themselves are part of the true “source” of the movie, since without their cooperation, I can’t possibly re-film the scenes I felt that the original director bungled. Should we enslave actors, binding them into a performance contract with all recipients of the movie?!

    Thus, asking for what might seem to a programmer like the “full source” for a movie or painting might be asking for more than the artist can afford to publish, or for material they literally have no way to publish. It may be unreasonable due to bulk, due to not being originally in a digital form, or even due to being a being!

    It is, of course, a very good reason not to use the CC licenses for software (for which a clearly defined concept of “source” does exist), for which every CC rep I have ever spoken to says they should not be used (usually, they recommend the GPL or LGPL, and so do I).

  6. Terry,

    To conflate support of PD with an anti-copyleft position is unjustified and unfair.

    I support copyleft for free software because it is a tactic that increases the amount of freedom overall. If and when that is not the case, I will use permissive licenses. I am not taking a categorical or principled position in favor of the “freedom to take away the freedom of others” and its offensive that you’d imply that I am simply because I advocate PD.

    It’s hard to ignore the fact that even the copyleft CC licenses have ”explicitly” decided not to include a preferred form of modification clause. You don’t even need to distribute source! This, in my opinion, is a much more egregious parity violation.

  7. My article on this is linked in the above discussion (which I appreciate very much, thank you, Mako). Drew and Greg have made the case fairly well above.

    But to summarize my point to a one-liner: ‘I believe that allowing TPM (even with a parallel distribution requirement) amounts to an anti-copyleft position.’

    It’s basically the same argument made by people who like the BSD or MIT licenses and not the GPL: the end user is more free if they are free to impose restrictions on derivative works and/or on the use of the original.

    However, those are freedom to take away the freedom of others, which is a fundamental parity violation (IOW, “it’s not fair!”). The GPL and other copyleft licenses insist on the quid pro quo of keeping free works free. The CC anti-TPM clause achieves the same effect.

    And while, I’m okay with hearing alternative solutions, “TPM distribution with parallel clear distribution” is not of them, because it doesn’t solve the problem. Greg’s DRM Dave scenario, described above, and summarized in my article shows that it permits breakage of copyleft (and it’s not an edge case — this is pretty clearly exactly what we can expect to happen if parallel distribution is permitted).

    The GPL says that if you can’t distribute according to the terms of the license, you just can’t distribute. That’s the effect of the CC anti-TPM clause, too. Your argument:

    “It is true that if the individual modifies the work after obtaining it through the parallel distribution, she may not be able to put it on the DRMed platform herself. But she wouldn’t have that ability, with or without the parallel distribution clause. (Indeed, without one, she would be forbidden from distributing her modifications through the DRMed channel entirely.)”

    can be equally used to attack the GPL’s patent requirements (such as the ones called into question by the Microsoft/Novell ‘covenant not to sue’ agreements, which, if viewed as an exclusive patent cross-licensing agreement, would, according to the terms of the GPL, deny Novell distribution rights).

    In other words, we already accept as a general principle that distribution which breaks copyleft can be prohibited, and still be considered “free”. I think that’s the effect of CC’s current language, and it would be damaged by the proposed “parallel distribution” clause.

    Now, there is a middle ground.

    It is possible to consider a very tiny keyhole clause, which is this: if TPM can be applied by the end user, with no cost, as easily as installing the package, then it’s not unreasonable to allow TPM+parallel distribution. In other words, the keys for encryption have to exist (this allows the user to make their own modified version run on the TPM-only platform).

    But note that if this case applies, then the anti-TPM clause as-is is no burden, because the end-user can apply TPM themselves “as easily as installing the package”.

    We can, of course, omit the “easily” requirement, but then we get into the sticky territory of deciding how hard it can be to do something before it is considered “intentional obfuscation” (and therefore a TPM measure in its own right)!

    But ALL TPM is intentional obfuscation (unlike compilation of source code, where the purpose is driven by the need to run efficiently on the hardware, not the need to hide the program code from the user).

    Parallel distribution of source and binary for software makes sense, because it’s driven by the needs of the technology — software naturally has such a dual nature. But TPM for cultural artifacts is another matter. It’s malicious by nature — hence, it’s simplest to simply forbid it.

    Just because we can bend the facts around into a pretzel to create an apparent injustice, doesn’t change this. There are edge cases for the GPL license, too, where it doesn’t seem to make sense to restrict distribution (For example, what if you want to combine MPL and GPL code? Both are free, copyleft licenses, with pretty much the same intent of licensing, so they ought to be compatible. But they aren’t! Legally, you can’t do it (not unless you seek permission to re-license one of the components)).

    Yes, those edge-cases are unfortunate. And, yes, I’m aware of the loss of comfort level involved in having to use a special loader for DRM-only platforms that applies the TPM at the end user. But seriously, it’s not a big price to pay to preserve copyleft.

    Examples referencing the Playstation are somewhat spurious, because although PS2 and PS3 support DRM, they do not really require it. You can create players for free, non-TPM material for those platforms.

  8. Parallel distribution allows platform monopolies.
    Anti-tpm prevents monopolization of a platform,
    but also permits individuals to apply TPM to
    a work so they can play it on their hardware,
    it just prevents them from distributing the
    work with the monopolization of TPM.

    DRM Dave can use DRM plus DMCA to create a
    hardware platform monopoly. Think of printer
    manufacturers who use encrypted ink cartridges
    and smart printers that only print if “approved”
    cartridges are installed, and then use the DMCA
    to prevent circumvention of the encryption.

    The difference here is that CC-SA content is
    the “ink” and DRM-Dave’s DRM-only platform is
    the “printer”. The monopolistic scenario is that
    the CC-SA community creates a project of
    content. DRM-Dave pulls this into his platform
    and wraps with with DRM. The community is
    forbidden to do this themselves without
    Dave’s permission, and Alice and Bob must pay
    Dave for a DRM-enabled version of the work to
    play on their printer.

    Imagine that you are part of a Free community
    that creates inks and cartridges, but the
    printer manufacturer uses DRM/Encryption/DMCA to
    prevent you from putting your ink in a printer
    you bought from Dave. While at the same time,
    the printer manufacturer uses your ink, and your
    cartridge designs, puts encryption on it, and
    because of the DMCA, the only way you can use
    your ink in the printer you bought from Dave is
    to buy the “free” ink cartridge from Dave
    wrapped in DRM.

    This is the platform monopoly, and how it
    monopolizes the CC-SA content.

    Parallel distribution does not solve the
    monopoly. It allows Dave to maintain the
    monopoly, and only requires Dave to distribute
    a parallel copy that will not play on the
    platform. You have to get the DRM-enabled
    version directly from Dave and you can’t
    share that version with Alice or Bob or anyone
    else. The rights to that copy of the work are
    restricted by DRM.

    The anti-TPM clause prevents this monopoly
    because it prevents Dave from using DRM to
    restrict the rights to the work. Because of the
    DMCA, you must get Dave’s permission to DRM the
    work, or Dave must DRM the work himself. If the
    work is DRM’ed and distributed, whatever DRM is
    applied must allow all rights to the work
    allowed under CC-SA to be exercisable by
    everyone in the community.

    So, DRM Dave can sell a copy of the DRM-enabled
    work to Alice, but Alice must be allowed to
    copy, distribute, derive the work, including
    giving a copy of the work to Bob. If she is
    prohibited from doing this, the anti-TPM clause
    will flag this as a violation and Dave will not
    be allowed to maintain his monopoly.

    anti-TPM also allows you to apply DRM locally,
    but not distribute it, and this even allows TPM
    that DOES restrict the rights to the work.
    You just aren’t allowed to distribute this copy
    of the work.

    What this means is that you are allowed to play with the work, apply DRM locally if Dave allows
    it, and have access to nearly all the rights you
    get with parallel distribution.

    But one important difference is that if DRM is
    applied to a work, that DRM cannot restrict the
    rights to the work. Meaning anti-TPM says you
    cannot use TPM to make the work less Free, and
    monopolize your hardware platform.

  9. Parallel distribution is a good idea.

    One of the reasons that cc was envisioned was to avoid situations where orphaned works became hard to use (because the original author had died/vanished or was unknown, and the long time scale of copyright). Licencing by cc solves that because if you know the work is cc, you often don’t need to worry so much about those above listed problems.

    But parallel distribution means that the link for parallel distribution must remain open for a LONG time. Ten years from now, say, I could get a DRM’ed disk, know its content is cc, know I should be able to use it, but the parallel distribution channel is now closed (or unavailable), so I can’t get a copy I can use. Maybe when I got the DRM’ed disk I thought I would be able to use it’s contents (as the licence implies), but know I’d feel a bit peeved. (This is analogous to the arguments against closed protocols, where your data is unusable, since the protocol it’s stored under is closed and the vendor controlling the protocol is now unavailable or unwilling to help. The solution was open protocols. Note that the analogous solution to this problem is NOT open protocol drm, but NO drm. Open drm wouldn’t help — you still couldn’t get your data. )

    Anyway, that’s a hypothetical situation. And there are always tradeoffs to be made. I think parallel distribution is an ok tradeoff.

    In reality, DRM usually sucks, but educated consumers and content providers are learning more to avoid it. I don’t think copyright licences are a good place to try to kill DRM, or even to constrain it. That just won’t work in my opinion.

    If people burning and distributing DRMed cds with copyrighted cc content became a huge problem, (even with the parralel distribution clause, which may not work well for ephemeral or non-mass-market content) effort might be better spent in suing (yes!) the makers of those burning systems for not making it easier for their users to choose to burn disks in a way which respected copyright legislation. (The supreme court of the US may think this way too!). There is no reason why the makers of those systems couldn’t make a way of burning disks that were unencumbered in order to respect copyright.

  10. I like the idea that if free culture is allowed to compete with non-free culture, non-free will whither away over time.  (Explained well in Karl Fogel’s “Promise of a Post-Copyright World”, http://www.questioncopyright.org/node/1)

    Allowing the parallel distribution clause seems like appeasement.  While not wanting to be spiteful, I don’t want to allow non-free platforms to have the chance to play with free material if their owners won’t extend the same courtesy.  Let them stay in the increasingly marginal non-free stream.  (In the long run.)

    I think there is also the risk of DRM platforms becoming widespread enough to make the parallel distribution requirement meaningless, as drew mentions.  It’s hard to imagine that happening now, but that is the goal of the RIAA/MPAA/ETC if they’re going to gain as much control as they think they deserve.  It seems like a much more clear statement to say, “No.  Not at all.”  If we muddy the waters, we create an opportunity for sneaky workarounds and delay the start of the marginalizing process.

    We can’t use their product, they can’t use ours.  (We being free culture supporters, and they being those who are against freedom.  I think creators of DRM systems belong in the “against freedom” category.)

    However, I have much to read on the issue.  I read through your position paper quickly and need to consider the different viewpoints and arguments more.

  11. I like the idea that if free culture is allowed to compete with non-free culture, non-free will whither away over time.  (Explained well in Karl Fogel’s “Promise of a Post-Copyright World”, http://www.questioncopyright.org/node/1)

    Allowing the parallel distribution clause seems like appeasement.  While not wanting to be spiteful, I don’t want to allow non-free platforms to have the chance to play with free material if their owners won’t extend the same courtesy.  Let them stay in the increasingly marginal non-free stream.  (In the long run.)

    I think there is also the risk of DRM platforms becoming widespread enough to make the parallel distribution requirement meaningless, as drew mentions.  It’s hard to imagine that happening now, but that is the goal of the RIAA/MPAA/ETC if they’re going to gain as much control as they think they deserve.  It seems like a much more clear statement to say, “No.  Not at all.”  If we muddy the waters, we create an opportunity for sneaky workarounds and delay the start of the marginalizing process.

    We can’t use their product, they can’t use ours.  (We being free culture supporters, and they being those who are against freedom.  I think creators of DRM systems belong in the “against freedom” category.)

    However, I have much to read on the issue.  I read through your position paper quickly and need to consider the different viewpoints and arguments more.

  12. James and Benjamin,

    I have read/skimmed your position paper,

    I feel you have missed the key problem some of us have with the parallel distribution plans… )I haven’t found a person with my position in your examples.)

    What Greg London calls platform monopolies and what I see as some day only DRM platforms being available.

    When I have suggested possible language which would allow paralled distribution in such a way as to shut out these negative outcomes, it has not really made it anywhere.

    I am a copyleft fan. I like the GPL amd I like BY-SA in the CC world.

    I don’t like DRM at all, but, I am not Sherman or Mr. Peabody.

    “For example, imagine that Dudley Do-Right wants to make Nell’s novel available in a PlayStation version. If he puts the novel on a PlayStation-formatted disc, however, DRM protections will prevent that disc from being read except on a PlayStation.”

    You need to address this issue. How does Dudly do this? Can anyone? If so, parallel may be cool. If not, not.

    I am happy to amke my works available for sale and for free, I am happy for someone else to make money on my copyrighted works. I am not happy if they use their platform to lock me out of competing with them for the sale of my works to their clients. if you can solve this problem with paralled distribution, I am all ears.

    I would write mre, but right now I am in a rush. I am writing a novel in thirty days as a part of the NaNoWriMo contest. It is ebing released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license here:

    http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954

    I want to cross the fifty thousand word winning line before the night is out.

    all the best,

    drew

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>