Okay - lots of good discussion in this email chain about licenses, definitions, etc. I won't be taking time to answer all of the messages that quoted my message because I am suffering from some difficulty with my eyes tonight (particularly one eye that seems to have a bit of an infection which is making it difficult to see). But, I appreciate all the discussion, and especially the references. (More research for me! Yippee!!)
My only comment to Matt's statement below is to supply an example of what happens when we remove the NC and ND deeds from the acceptable licenses. I just looked at Jamendo (just because they make it easy to search by license). Of their catalog of approximately 31,000 releases, only 7,033 releases qualify. And, additionally, some netlabels would be completely excluded from such distribution - for example Kahvi Collective. I'm not arguing / debating the subject...just supplying some food for thought... George On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Matt Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/03/2010 11:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> The implication of this is copyleft licenses (GPL, CC) are still legally >> enforceable, meaning that they are not as "free" as something released >> into the public domain. > > We're not here to argue degrees of freedom. > > CC-BY > > CC-BY-SA > > PD > > Art Libre > > GPL > > BSD > > LGPL > > All fine in this situation. > > -- --- Faster moments spent spread tales of change within the sound...
