David Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Licenses which might be used in Mutopia:
>
> (A) Public Domain
> (B) Copyrighted, with a free license allowing derivatives to be non-free.
> (C) Copyleft; GPL / OPL / something new.
> (D) Free non-commercial distribution and modification only. (OCL?)
> (E) Free distribution, but no modification allowed. (Does copyright law
> allow this for music?)
Mutopia should definitely not contain D and E, since they are totally
non-free. Software with these conditions would not be considered
DFSG-free.
> Legal issues:
>
> Can you [usefully] copyright the actual mudela "typesetting" of (1)? In
> which countries? (Not in many European countries?)
I think it depends how much intellectual work has gone into the typing
up of the mudela code. If it is done mechanically (which could mean
either by a human or a computer), the mudela shouldn't be a derivative
work, it should be the same work.
I think trying to copyleft out-of-copyright music is a bad idea:
* It's pointless, because it's easy to get around.
* It adds unnecessary legalism. Copyright is, after all, an evil.
To quote gratuitously, we must avoid what Nietzsche says: ``He who
fights against dragons becomes a dragon himself''.
* It risks a later fork of people who don't like copyleft, eg. the
BSD-style licence fanatics. I'm not sure if such people produce
anything or just rant, though. And I realise this argument is a
bit circular.
> Does modern Urtext count as (1)? In which countries? (France, Australia?)
>
> Performing rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, PRS ...) own the rights to their
> members' compositions, so most professional composers cannot contribute to
> Mutopia. Is (4) pointless, then?
It's not pointless for composers who don't belong to such societies.
Are there many?
> Moral/practical issues:
>
> Should we allow (D) and (E)?
>
> How "strong" should the copyleft be? Should it apply to performance?
> Broadcast? Sale on CD? Use as film music?
> Should postscript and paper versions be accompanied by an offer to
> supply the source code?
I would say no. Consider the words of the GNU GPL: ``The source code
for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it.'' The requirement to distribute source for GPL'd
software makes sense because there is a preferred form for making
modifications: it is virtually impossible to convert a program into
another language without losing some information that is essential to
humans.
But the same is *not* true for music. There is nothing special about
mudela. Mudela isn't even a well-defined thing, because it fluctuates
in its finer points between versions of Lilypond. If you were
required to distribute mudela with music, what version would it be?
You cannot say that the mudela you distribute must be processable with
Lilypond, because this is an arbitrary restriction.
After all, printed music contains the same information as the source
code, unlike binary software. It takes a bit more effort to convert
it back to mudela, true -- but it is not impossible. Once there
exists free music recognition software, this should not be a problem
any more.
This is not to say that I don't think music should be copylefted. I
think that if music is to be copylefted, the licence must be kept
*very simple*. Maybe something like:
There are no restrictions to playing, distributing or modifying this
work, except that if this work, or any derivative works, are
distributed, you must distribute them under the same terms as this
licence.
The GPL is essentially this, plus:
* A guaranteed source code condition.
* Authorship claim conditions. You have to say what changes you
made as well. This is perhaps the most-ignored part of the GPL, so
it might not be worth including. I don't think it's necessary for
software, since you can usually get old versions and run `diff' on
them.
* No warranty clause. Is this necessary when music is not
functional?
* A show-them-your-rights condition; GPL'd works must be accompanied
by a copy of the GPL. I don't think this would be relevant to
music since it would be an imposition for performances. (Although
I'm not really sure how copyright law works for performances.)
--
Mark Seaborn
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://members.xoom.com/mseaborn/ -
A bad tool blames its workman.
