Mark Seaborn writes: > David Chan writes: >> 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. Yes, that's true, you're right. [...] >>> 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? [...] > I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to set themselves up > a little business just photocopying free music without a computer. Yes, I agree, you're right about both these things. Ok, so I was wrong, we must allow people to distribute verbatim copies without having to provide the source code. I think we should still insist that distributors of modified versions must provide source code, though. >> 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? He might think he can get longer before other publishers start selling his music. Or he might just not be bothered to make the effort to release the source, just like software companies with obsolete software often don't bother, even when it wouldn't hurt them. >> 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. I think this is quite likely - it cuts down the amount of competition. > 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. This will happen some times; other times it won't. I don't think we should particularly rely on it happening. Another thing is that a small number of big publishers control the market today - including, significantly, the distribution channels. They probably don't want copylefted music to succeed. Hoping for "some publisher" to release the source code might sometimes work in a fluid free market, but in a quite monopolistic market it'll be less effective. -- David
