David Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> We could insist that if someone distributes derivative works, he must make
> the source code to *that work* available. So if he writes his derivation
> on manuscript paper, then the manuscript will count as the source code and
> he can distribute photocopies without having to enter the music into a
> computer.
>
> On the other hand, if he creates a derivative which is typeset with
> Lilypond, or Sibelius, or some other program, then the printed version is
> not the source code. He would have to make the .ly or .sib file (or
> equivalent) available.
Surely you're destroying your own argument here? If someone loads a
Mudela file into Sibelius, modifies it there, and distributes it, in
your scheme they only have to release the Sibelius file. But the
Sibelius file is of no use whatsoever to most people.
What if someone used a completely secret program to produce their
derivative work? They could release the machine-readable source to
the music, but it would be meaningless.
> The trick would be finding a legal formulation of this which is at least
> as watertight as the GPL. The GPL speaks of "The complete
> *machine-readable* source code, on a medium customarily used for software
> interchange".
But source code must be machine-readable because you need a machine to
process it. A program is not much use without a computer.
Music is different. You don't need a machine to process it. Music is
supposed to be read by humans.
And sheet music *is* machine-readable anyway. There are music
recognition programs around. Program source code has comments and
names in it to make it readable by humans, but Mudela source code
generally contains no more information than the printed sheet music --
the comments don't (and shouldn't) contain essential information for
playing the piece.
Consider someone who buys some nicely-bound *free* music from a
publisher. She does not have a computer. She received a disc
containing the Mudela source code for the music, but it's totally
useless to her. What happens if she wants to photocopy it for a
friend? She can't, because she can't copy the source code. She could
pass on the floppy disc, but she'd only be able to do that once.
And why should the publisher distribute the source on a disc? Why not
a CD-ROM, or punched card? Obviously with computer software the
source can come on the same medium as the binaries; this makes sense.
But this can't apply to music.
> We could specify something like this, e.g. :
> If the work is generated by a machine, then you must [offer to]
> provide, at a nominal fee, the source code which the machine uses to
> generate the work.
How do you determine whether the derivative work was created with a
machine?
> One of the biggest practical advantages Mutopia users will have is
> the access to the source code.
People will still be able to get the Mudela source code from the
Internet.
> It will let people transpose the music, or print it in different
> clefs, or in (say) ABC or guitar notation, without having to type it
> in all over again. If we allow derivative works to be distributed
> without source code, we are letting distributors deny others the
> same easy access to the source code that they benefitted from.
If the piece is copylefted, people will still be able to scan the
sheet music it, run it through a music recognition program, and do
whatever they like with it.
--
Mark Seaborn
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://members.xoom.com/mseaborn/ -
A bad tool blames its workman.
