IANAL
Hi folks
When writing on the other thread ("Problems with the DSL"), it
came to my mind that I should better introduce myself, first,
and also write down my thoughts about the developements in the
free music scene, which I will hereby do.
1. How I Got to Free Music
I make some music with tracker software since 1997, nowadays
with the Gnome program Soundtracker. OTOH, my effords to start a
real band failed due to a lack of time of the other band members.
Since January 2000, I am using free software almost exclusively.
Also, at that time, I joined the Oekonux mailing list, where the
impact of the free software developement on society is discussed.
The topic includes the transfer of free software principles on
other areas.
So, in August 2000, I planned
* to release my music under the GPL,
* to try out internet-based composing, following the "release
early -- release often" scheme, and
* to make live music in loose local communities, similar to a
Linux User Group, rather than in a band.
So, as a first test, I put one song online, licensed under the
GPL, including source code and a README file. The source code
consisted of an XM module. It was about 20 MB, while the
corresponding MP3 (er, there was no Vorbis, yet) was only 3 MB.
So I discovered a little space problem.
I still have these plans, but the licensing problem still
prevents the entire thing from starting.
2. GPL Problems
When I've read through the German Copyright Law
("Urheberrechtsgesetz") (I did not read through the US version,
yet, as it is about 10 times as huge), I noticed that the GPL is
not really suitable for licensing music:
2.1. Usage Rights
The GPL does not cover any activities besides copying,
distribution and modification. As it seems to me, for computer
programs, these are the only activities that require
permission. (However, maybe I am wrong about this. The German
Copyright Law is ambinguous in this point.)
For other work forms, however, there are some other usage rights
that require permission:
* to exhibute the work (only applicable on photographical
works and works of the forming arts),
* to recite, perform or (technically) present it to the public,
* to broadcast it, and
* to make it publically perceptible from a recording or
transmission of the Work
Obviously, the GPL does not grant them.
2.2. Different Work Types
Further, music is not just scores, but often it also includes
lyrics, and is copied as a recording of a performance. So, the
work is composed of four different work types, with different
protection times. OTOH, I think, this is not a problem of the
license, but of a properly written copyright notice.
2.3. Source Code
In January 2001, I found the web pages of the band "Durch Dick
und Dünn" from Berlin. They also released their music online,
under the GPL, however they did not include any source code.
When I emailed the band leader, he told me, that the source
material of a single song is about 1 GB, so that therefore its
distribution should not be enforced.
So, there is the next problem with the GPL: Different people
define differently what the source code is.
Definition A: The source code is everything that is needed to
reproduce the binary byte-accurately.
Definition B: Def. A is fine, however lossy compression of
the source tracks is OK, too.
Definition C: Binary and Source Code is the same -- like with a
text file. With analyzers and filters, a WAV can be modified
very well.
Each of these definitions is OK, IMHO, but their difference
makes the works license-incompatible (although the license is
the same).
Personally, I prefer def. B, but with the incompatibility in
mind, I could also live with def. C, and encourage people to
voluntarily distribute the def. B sources.
In order to avoid confusion, the best thing for def. C would
IMHO be a modified (but official) version of the GPL without
requiring any source code. (just strip "'s source code" in
section 1, and strip section 3 entirely)
2.4. Origininal and Immaterial Work
Another problem might be that the GPL is only designed for
digital copies, not for an analog original (e.g. an oil
painting) or an immaterial representation (e.g. a performance or
broadcasting of the work).
3. Other Licenses
Meanwhile, there are several other licenses around, partially
specialized for music, partially for general content.
None of them fully adresses the problem with the missing usage
rights. So, works licensed under these licenses cannot be fully
considered "free", IMHO.
They all try to implement a copyleft, and are therefore propably
incompatible to each other, due to different conditions. So,
several branches of free music are created.
3.1. Trackers Public License
The TPL is limited only to music created with a raster
sequencer (tracker). This means, it is impossible for a
licensee, to play a tune that is licensed under this license,
using another technology! IIRC, it was only a draft, but I'm
not sure.
3.2. Design Science License
The DSL is nice, because it is intended for general
content, which is IMHO an important aim.
The copyleft is implemented like in the GPL.
Actually, I can't tell the difference between the DSL and the
GPL, apart from formal issues.
3.3. EFF Open Audio License
The OAL is a copyleft license, limited to audio. Therefore,
it may be difficult to include OAL licensed material into a
film work.
There are two annoying features:
The proposed, very cryptic way to apply a copyright notice
on the work seems strange to me. I doubt that this is even
legally valid.
Besides that, there is no warranty disclaimer. Instead,
the copyright holder gives a warranty for non-infringement!
3.4. Open Music License (green)
The OML is a family of minimalistic music licenses (no
preamble), with lots of restricting options. The green
version is the most free one.
The copyleft is implemented in a strange way: the license
does not adress single licensees, and there is no termination
clause.
3.5. Free Media License
The FML is yet another content license ;o) I found that one two
links away from the "Copylefted TV shows" thread. I have not
finished reading it, yet. It seems to be similar to the GFDL.
4. Writing a New License
I am also thinking about creating my own license if there wont
be a really good one available soon. The thing I need most for
it is something like Debian-Legal, but for non-Debian-specific
stuff.
Currently, I have three different ideas how this license could
look like:
4.1. Full copyleft
The first idea I had was to create a GPL style full copyleft
license, suitable for any content. However, there are some
difficulties:
In a classic copyleft license, the only critical usage is the
distribution of a modified version. By modifying the work, the
new author gets exclusive rights on the modified version; so the
copyleft license gently forces him to grant non-exclusive rights
to everybody, by ceasing all rights otherwise.
With the additional usage rights included, there will be even
more such critical actions:
* When the work is performed, both the performing artist and
the company (if there was one) that organized the show have
something like a copyright on the performance, as well as on
all recordings of the performance: the performing artist for
50 years, and the company for 25 years.
* The producer of a broadcasting gets 50 years of protection
for all recordings and photographs.
* The producer of an audio recording gets protected for 50
years. Although this is a form of copying, it is neither
verbatim copying nor modified copying. (If you record someone
reciting a book, the copied language work might not be
changed.)
* A photographer gets protection for 50 years for a snapshot or
for a lifetime plus 70 years for a piece of art. (same
problem as with audio recordings)
* When a modified work is exhibuted or publically used
immaterially, it is copyrighted by the one who modified it,
so nobody can copy, distribute or otherwise use it. The usual
copyleft clause does not work here, as the work is not copied
or distributed.
The license has to demand that for any of these actions the
future copyright holder has to grant a license to everybody;
otherwise his rights will be ceased.
The copyleft clauses for performances and broadcastings would
require that the performance or broadcasting itself would be
licensed to everybody. But as they are so different from
material works, I'm not sure whether only one self-recursive
license would be so clever. Maybe there should be two
pairwise-recursive licenses; one for material works, and one for
immaterial works.
The next problem is that the audience has to be informed about
their rights. If they are not informed about it, they would
assume they have no rights at all. Especially, this is important
when the work is changed, performed or broadcasted. One cannot
assume that any such version will be put under a free license.
Someone could willingly break the license and not relicense the
work. Then he could sue anybody who uses it, and it is not even
sure that the upstream author will sue him in return. (Remember
that a copyleft license is just a dirty hack. A copyleft law
would propably make things more easy.)
There has to be an easy way to announce these things. For
example, if a broadcasting station has to read out the complete
license and the complete list of authors and contributers, and
things like that, this would encourage people to willingly break
the license. (Maybe there could be an internet-based registry
that will ease things up. But that has to exist before the
license is written.)
I have made a few drafts for such a license (which are all
crap), but it seems to difficult for me.
4.2. BSD Style License
To create a non-copyleft free content license should be far more
easy. It would just grant all possible usage rights to
everybody. I have not tried it, yet, and I think it would only
be a makeshift.
4.3. Supplementary License
A few days ago, I had another idea: The classic usage rights,
copying, distribution and modification, could be handled by
whatever license, maybe the GPL or something similar. This would
be the "base license".
The missing usage rights, exhibuting etc. (modified or not),
could be granted in a seperate, supplementary license. In a
simple version, it would not implement a copyleft on these
rights, however it will poll the termination status of the base
license and terminate when the base license terminates. This
will be better than no copyleft at all.
An advanced version, to be created later, would implement a full
copyleft, except that it only terminates the additional rights
it grants. (It cannot terminate the base license.) This way, it
will be downwards compatible to the simple version.
I think the advanced one should be a pairwise-recursive
two-parter ;o)
5. Projects
Besides the licensing problem, there is the problem of many
small free music projects and discussion forums.
At the moment, I know of these projects:
* "GNUsic" is a project aiming at making GPLed music. I don't
know much about it, not even if there is a mailing list.
http://www.gnusic.org
* "Free Music" is the corresponding mailing list of Ram
Smudrala's "Free Music Philosophy". Unfortunately, Ram's
definition of "free music" is very wide and includes music
that is only free for non-commercial use, too. Besides that,
he releases all his music into the Public Domain. So this
may be the wrong place for discussing licensing issues.
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html
* "Free Music" #2 is a mailing list, created by Sven Windisch,
originally for discussing his TPL. Actually, we discussed
there a lot of the stuff found in this mail. This is de facto
my home list.
http://www.gaos.org/freemusic
* "Lizenzen" was a mailing list that has been used in order to
discuss existing Open Content licenses, maybe to create one
and to prepare a session on the 2nd "Wizards of OS" (WOS2)
conference in Berlin, september 2001. There were also some
lawyers from the IfROSS (the institute that managed to get an
exception for "Open Source software and other Open Content"
into the strict regulations on Royalties in the next version
of the German Copyright Law). However, I didn't find much
help in that project as my ideas were regarded too radical.
http://www.mikro.org/Events/OS/wos2/topics-e.html#fcl
* "Open Artists" is a discussion list for artists using the
OML. The OML was created for the LinuxTag event 2001, at
which a CD of OML-licensed music was sold. I met the
OML-creator Michael Kleinhenz at the WOS2 in Berlin.
http://openmusic.linuxtag.org/showitem.php?item=0030
* At the WOS2, I also met two guys who planned a project called
"Copyleft.cc". However, when I looked at their web site last
time, there was nothing to see, yet :o( Also no list, yet.
http://www.copyleft.cc
* "Linart" was the list I joined last. It's about Linux art,
free content and the DSL, written by Michael Stutz.
http://www.linart.net
* The next project is slightly different: "Free Superhits" is a
link collection referring to music under the OAL or under the
green OML (other licenses may be proposed). The music can
also be evaluated, online. I hope this will become something
like "the Freshmeat of free music" or better "the Debian of
free music". There is a news group for general free music
discussion.
http://free.superhits.ch
Most of these projects have a discussion list for general free
music issues. So, it is difficult to decide where to post.
OTOH, there are no special purpose lists, such as a list for
licensing issues (such as Debian-Legal). A discussion on that
topic is IMHO too specific for any of these lists.
So maybe a first step could be a project, discussing how to
unite the scattered free music (or free content) comunity.
6. Epilogue
(C) 2002 Thomas Uwe Gr\"uttm\"uller
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
email under the terms either:
* the GNU General Public License¹ as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
your option) any later version, or
* the GNU Free Documentation License², Version 1.1 or any later
version published by the Free Software Foundation; with
no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts and with no
Back-Cover Texts.
This email is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.
cu,
Thomas
}:o)
¹) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
²) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
