On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > 2) Is there any update about getting a copyleft music license?
>
> No. The issue hasn't been discussed any further, so if you have good
> ideas, go ahead.
Ok, here goes! First of all, I think we can accept more than one type of
license. Obviously public domain is fine, and BSD-style is easy to do.
I think we need to decide on a copyleft license, decide whether to allow
"non-commercial use only" music, and decide whether to claim copyright on
works which we have only typeset (and not edited).
> (1) Out-of-copyright music entered verbatim.
I think we should put copyright notices on (1). It's probably enforceable
in some places. If it's not enforceable, we lose nothing. If people
aren't sure, they'll probably respect our claim to copyright.
I think it's also morally acceptable. We're not restricting the sharing of
knowledge, as the music is already publically available. We're only laying
claim to the work we've done in entering it, and we're licensing this freely.
> (4) Copyrighted new compositions, with a free license.
I think we should allow this, and just check that members of performing
rights societies don't contribute. I know many very talented amateur
performing musicians; I'm sure there must be talented amateur composers
too.
> (C) Copyleft; GPL / OPL / something new.
I'm in favour of allowing copylefted work. I think we need a new license
here. There are issues with music which don't apply to software or written
publications.
i) Must derivative sheet music be free?
ii) Must the source code be available for the above?
iii) Must derivative audio music be free?
If we wanted, we could create a license which allows options to be specified
by the copyright holder. E.g. "This edition is copyrighted; you may
redistribute it under the terms of the Public Music License with options i)
and ii) in force".
We also need to take into account the legal differences between music and
written publications / software. For instance, somebody suggested that you
can't restrict the modification of typeset music. The case law is probably
different for music than for other publications. Our "source code" is not
as easy to hide as that for software.
Obviously if we create a new license, we need a lawyer to help us.
> (D) Free non-commercial distribution and modification only. (OCL?)
> (E) Free distribution, but no modification allowed. (Does copyright law
> allow this for music?)
I don't think we should allow these. Source code isn't so important for
music, and modifications are always legal, so the two freedoms which are
missing from commercial music are freedom to redistribute and freedom from
price. There are plenty of websites devoted to "freedom from price" music.
Let's not undermine our "freedom to redistribute" message by allowing (D)
and (E).
Obviously, these are just my opinions and people won't agree with
everything. Please comment, and give your opinions / ideas!
Thanks,
David
