David Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark Seaborn writes:
[snip]
> Well ok, I'm sure a free Sibelius import filter is easier to write
> than a free music OCR program!
Hmm, hard to compare since they're very different tasks. The Sibelius
format is secret, isn't it?
[GPL]
> > [...] I would contend that the phrase ["scripts"] *does* cover the
> > compiler.
>
> I think this is impractical. It would mean that, for example,
> Windows ports of GPLed software can't make use of proprietory MS
> Visual C++ extensions. I doubt that's true even for, say, GDK.
You're probably right. But then I don't want to argue about the
GPL. :-)
[snip]
> > A free music license will have to last, and not contain outdated
> > restrictions.
>
> If OMR gets good enough that it is trivial to read the printed music
> into a computer, then the printed version *is* "machine-readable
> source code" and so the restriction doesn't exist.
I think there are big problems with intending the interpretation of a
licence to change over time with technological developments.
Interpretations tend to get established, such as the interpretation of
the GPL with respect to dynamically-linked libraries.
[snip]
> > Why should commercial copiers and non-commercial copiers be
> > treated differently? Why should commercial copiers be required to
> > have computers?
>
> I don't think this is much of a restriction in today's world!
What about in poor countries?
And I still don't see what medium commercial distributors will have to
distribute source on. Disc, CD-ROM or punched tape?
[snip]
> > You become a commercial copier even if you sell photocopied sheets
> > for a few pence each.
>
> I don't think charging people for the medium is commercial copying.
> (If I charge my friend 20p for a floppy disc with lilypond on it,
> that doesn't make me a commercial copier). If you're charging much
> more than the cost of the prints then it is commercial copying.
I think you're saying that it's commercial if you charge for your
time. I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to set themselves up
a little business just photocopying free music without a computer.
[snip]
> Well, look at Mutopia now. There's nothing stopping people from
> typesetting an old edition of Beethoven's 5th. There is a large
> demand for copies of this music from orchestras. But it hasn't
> happened - because it's a huge effort to type all that music in, and
> not much less effort to scan it using OMR. Believe me, if there
> were an OMR program available today that made it easy, I would have
> already done it.
I suppose I'm biased because most of the music I play is just for one
or two instruments and quite short.
> The same will happen in future for substantial modifications of our
> work. Suppose Gershwin had released his Rhapsody in Blue for two
> pianos on Mutopia, and Ferde Grofe had created his orchestral
> version as a derivative. Suppose Grofe sold his printed version in
> the shops - but didn't release the source.
But why would he have done this if the original had been copylefted,
and anyone could copy his new version anyway?
> How long do you think it would be before somebody typed / OMRed all
> of that huge orchestral score?
Probably until the next music publisher decided they wanted to get in
on the act and publish the same derivative work themselves.
True, the publisher might decide to keep their copy of the music
source secret. But self-interest is a very complex thing, and I
wouldn't be surprised if a few publishers decided it was in their
interest to release such sources to encourage others to do the same,
or to gain goodwill.
--
Mark Seaborn
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://members.xoom.com/mseaborn/ -
``She never loses a match. If she loses a match, it's because
her opponent beats her'' -- Pam Shriver
