[CC-ed to RMS, hoping he will comment, especially on the 3rd case. The
subject is copyright statements for entries in an archive of free
music]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1. Public domain - people can basically do what they want with the
> music; there are no restrictions.
>
> Tagline: This music is part of the Mutopia project and has been placed
> in the public domain by the person who typeset it. Reproducing and
> distributing this music is encouraged - copy this music and share it!
Tagline: This music is part of the Mutopia project (http:// ). It has been
typeset and put in the public domain by <NAME>. Unrestricted
modification and redistribution is allowed and encouraged.
> 2. GPL - people can do almost what they like with the music except for
> making it non-free ie. removing the copyright message and selling the
> music.
1. Should we use OCL iso. GPL?
2. GPL means that you may not restrict others rights to modify and
redistribute. Wether you ask money (selling) for redistributions
is not relevant:
As long as you supply the sources (and modifications to those)
under GPL or OCL as well, you may sell.
3. Should we distinguish between the printed output, postscript
files, and input? It would be idiotic to demand that people who
distribute printed matter also distribute diskettes.
> Tagline: This music is part of the Mutopia project and reproduction is
> permitted under the GNU GPL. Reproducing and distributing this music is
> encouraged - copy this music and share it! If you did not receive a
> copy of the GNU GPL with this music then write to the Free Software
> Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307,
> USA.
I don't think the difference between PD and GPL is very clear from
this tagline. But I can't make up anything better at the moment.
> 3. Restricted - this would only be applicable to music that has been
> both written and arranged by the person submitting it to Mutopia, ie.
> it isn't actually out of copyright. People would only be allowed to
> distribute the music for free, and not charge money for it. Of course,
> if a composer wants to release their work under the GNU GPL or place it
> in the public domain then they are free to do so.
>
> Tagline: This music is part of the Mutopia project and reproduction is
> permitted. Selling reproductions of this music is forbidden, however.
> Copy this music and share it!
I am wondering: should we allow this?
Contra:
* Mutopia is about "free" music, ie. works that come with rights to
modify the works.
If we these works in the same archive as the free ones, that would
cause confusion.
* Perhaps we shouldn't get into this, because it will open a can of
worms: I think a lot of composers will want different restrictions on
distribution.
Pro:
On the other hand, if composers want to spread their works of art, maybe
we ought to have a channel for that. After all the GNU project also
has texts that carry notices "Verbatim Reproduction allowed"
In any case, I vote not to restrict selling, but use a license like
this
This work is copyright 19xx <NAME>. This was downloaded from
the Mutopia project, http:// . Reproduction is allowed only if
done verbatimly.
Perhaps we can add an advertisement clause, like
Advertising materials using this Work must display the
following acknowledgement
Contains Music from obtained from the Mutopia project
(http:// ..) by <NAME>
I don't particularly like this restriction, but it might make composers
less anxious about abuse of their works of art, and encourage them
to set their music free.
In any case, I think that this 3rd case needs the biggest amount of
thought. Perhaps we can also postpone this decisions, and for
now disallow non-free music in Mutopia.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** GNU LilyPond - The Music Typesetter
http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html
