Tesla Coil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2000, Michael Stutz proposed:
> > The aggregation of the Work with other works which are not
> > based on the Work -- such as but not limited to inclusion in
> > a publication, broadcast, compilation, or other media -- does
> > not bring the other works in the scope of the License; nor does
> > such aggregation void the terms of the License for the Work.
> >
> > 4. MODIFICATION.
> >
> > Permission is granted to modify or sample from a copy of the
> > Work, producing a derivative work, and to distribute the
> > derivative work under the terms described in the section for
> > distribution above, provided that the following terms are met:
> >
> > (a) The new, derivative work is published under the terms of
> > this License.
>
> A question discussed last May in the "licensing" thread:
> Is use of a DSL song in a movie/music video/commercial
> soundtrack an aggregate or derivative work?
I think it depends on the nature of the work its being included in. If
it is a magazine or audio CD compilation, then probably not. But
including a DSL song in a commercial or music video is clearly making
an aggregate work from the song -- it could be done, but the video or
commercial would have to be released under DSL terms as well.
There would be another way to do it. As sole copyright holder of the
song, you could license the song to the producers of the commercial or
video under some other terms. (This has already been done with
GPL-released works, and I've done this with text that I sold to
magazines.) But if the song had more than one copyright holder, it
could be difficult...
> > (b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its
> > name or title can not be confused with the Work, or with
> > a version of the Work, in any way.
>
> Potential gray area in what distinguishes a derivative of
> the Work from a version of the Work, thence the issue
> of when licensing stipulates the Work must be retitled.
I think an author ought to have artistic control of his
vision. Everyone else ought to be able to use any part of the author's
work (with attribution) in their own work.
To keep your reputation proprietary to yourself, you have to retain
control of both use of your name _and_ your titles. So only the author
has control of the "official" version tree (the r�le of "benevolent
dictator").
But anyone else _can_ make a new version tree (a derivative wrok, with
different name -- gcc/egcs, Emacs/XEmacs, etc), and anyone can make
new branches off _that_. And authors can always give control of the
version tree of a work to another party.
This is basically how it works with free software, and I wondered if
this was ever officially spelled out with respect to that community,
since the licenses don't address it -- was there a "So you want to
join the open source/free software community" FAQ?
And then I remembered "Homesteading the Noosphere":
According to the standard open-source licenses, all parties
are equals in the evolutionary game. But in practice there is
a very well-recognized distinction between `official'
patches, approved and integrated into the evolving software by
the publicly recognized maintainers, and `rogue' patches by
third parties. Rogue patches are unusual, and generally not
trusted [RP].
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading.html
