Re: MIDI file dual-licensed (GPL + Creative Commons) ok?
Hi, thanks Francesco and Joe for the comments and insights. There's a lot more complexity in such license issues than one would expect and want to know, that's for sure ;) Anyways, I conclude that the license is good enough for Debian, so I'll leave the package intact, just slightly update the debian/copyright file. Thanks, Uwe. -- Uwe Hermann http://www.hermann-uwe.de http://www.it-services-uh.de | http://www.crazy-hacks.org http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIDI file dual-licensed (GPL + Creative Commons) ok?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:03:19 +0200 Uwe Hermann wrote: If you choose to separate the music from the game without using it in other software, the GNU General Public License is likely not to provide the level of protection the music requires. This is because the GPL was written for software, specifically, and there are other, better licenses to choose for content such as music. Therefore, if you separate the music from the software, you may also choose the Creative Commons license described below. It is recommended that you do so, because otherwise you may find yourself with the GPL unenforceable on the music, and you will have no license for the music otherwise. I strongly dislike all this FUD about the GNU GPL. The author of this permission notice should really *read* licenses before spreading misconceptions about them... The very text of the GNU GPL v2 (section 0.) defines the term Program (please note the capital letter) as: | any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the ^ | copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this | General Public License I don't see how the GPL could be considered unenforceable on the music (whatever that may mean)... Indeed music should be fine under the GPL, or at least is no worse off than when under a CC licence. Of course US copyright law as it relates to music is highly perverse, because the law was writen by the RIAA in conjuction with the record labels (ASCAP [read: ass-cap]). Remember that there are a whole crudload of copyrights on any given released song. There is Copyright on music (composer), on the lyrics (lyricist), on the performance (artist), and on the recording (Publisher [strictly whoever actually ran the recording machine]). The publisher usually has production rights, which are distict ftom the rights on a particular recording. Do note the seperate copyrights of the artist and publisher, which are often lumped together. [This is similar to how I hold copyright on a speech I give, even one that is completely impromptu, but the stenographer who trasncibes the speech has copyright on that particular transcription. Of course the transcription is a derivitive work, and would require licence from me, but there is still actual copyright on the transcription.] Then there are the special rights for the publishers, the compulsory licence, etc. Existing precident is presumably based mostly on traditional publishing, and I would not be too surprised if it conflicts with free-software style licencing were present, but certainly the CC licence would be no better off in this regard than the GPL. I think it's OK (even though upstream seems to be misled by Creative Commons propaganda or something...). If one were to quickly read the CC Licences it would be easy to miss the problems that cause GPL-incompatability and/or DFSG-nonfreeness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIDI file dual-licensed (GPL + Creative Commons) ok?
Hi, Crimson Fields includes a *.mid file which has the following license: --- License for the soundtrack Quite simply, you have two choices. The music, as distributed with Crimson Fields, is covered under the GNU General Public License, same version(s) as the game itself. If you choose to separate the music from the game without using it in other software, the GNU General Public License is likely not to provide the level of protection the music requires. This is because the GPL was written for software, specifically, and there are other, better licenses to choose for content such as music. Therefore, if you separate the music from the software, you may also choose the Creative Commons license described below. It is recommended that you do so, because otherwise you may find yourself with the GPL unenforceable on the music, and you will have no license for the music otherwise. Copyright Notice default.mid - Default Symphony (c) 2004 by Dave Fancella, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Creative Commons License chosen guarantees all the same rights of the GPL with the exception of a requirement of attribution. Creative Commons License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 You are free: * to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work * to make derivative works * to make commercial use of the work Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must give the original author credit. Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license). --- I _think_ that should be ok, just wanted to make sure. Uwe. -- Uwe Hermann http://www.hermann-uwe.de http://www.it-services-uh.de | http://www.crazy-hacks.org http://www.holsham-traders.de | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MIDI file dual-licensed (GPL + Creative Commons) ok?
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:03:19 +0200 Uwe Hermann wrote: Hi, Crimson Fields includes a *.mid file which has the following license: - -- License for the soundtrack Quite simply, you have two choices. The music, as distributed with Crimson Fields, is covered under the GNU General Public License, same version(s) as the game itself. That is enough for the soundtrack to comply with the DFSG. Fine! :) If you choose to separate the music from the game without using it in other software, the GNU General Public License is likely not to provide the level of protection the music requires. This is because the GPL was written for software, specifically, and there are other, better licenses to choose for content such as music. Therefore, if you separate the music from the software, you may also choose the Creative Commons license described below. It is recommended that you do so, because otherwise you may find yourself with the GPL unenforceable on the music, and you will have no license for the music otherwise. I strongly dislike all this FUD about the GNU GPL. The author of this permission notice should really *read* licenses before spreading misconceptions about them... The very text of the GNU GPL v2 (section 0.) defines the term Program (please note the capital letter) as: | any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the ^ | copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this | General Public License I don't see how the GPL could be considered unenforceable on the music (whatever that may mean)... Copyright Notice default.mid - Default Symphony (c) 2004 by Dave Fancella, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Creative Commons License chosen guarantees all the same rights of the GPL with the exception of a requirement of attribution. This is definitely false. Creative Commons License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 [...] This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license). - -- I _think_ that should be ok, just wanted to make sure. I think it's OK (even though upstream seems to be misled by Creative Commons propaganda or something...). -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp6RUECawg18.pgp Description: PGP signature
