I forgot to include the list in my last reply to Valentin: 2009/5/11 Valentin Villenave <[email protected]>: > 2009/5/9 Francisco Vila <[email protected]>: >> It was typeset by the pianist and composer Pascual Marchante. As for >> the license of the score: well thougth, if it is not published at all, >> how can it be licensed anyway? It is a copyrighted work, period. IIRC >> it was commissioned by the Madrid autonomous community and maybe it >> holds the whole rights. > > As you may remember, free-licensed works are copyrighted (since free > licenses precisely rely on copyright, for example to guarantee the > author's paternity right).
You're right! But the Berne Convention states that unless explicitly stated otherwise, all rights are reserved. Therefore I could have said: copyrighted _and_ not copylefted. This is a copyrighted work under the default restrictive, non-free meaning of copyright. If I can read on a work "This is copyright ---the author" and nothing else, I understand that there is nothing good I can do with this work without permission. Free-licensed works have to state it explicitly, do you agree? [Answer from Valentin]: Yes. Without any explicit mention, the most restrictive clauses apply. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
