> 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.
As an arranger of music, I'd like to use a copyright that allows free
distribution, but that requires --
-- no removal of authorship or copyright notices,
-- source to be acknowledged when performed or excerpts
published,
-- any substantive changes to be documented, and their authors
identified. (changing the layout, or changing mudela
version is not a substantive change; altering notes,
rhythms, dynamic markings, lyrics etc., is)
but places no other restrictions on performance or on verbatim
reproduction for non-commercial use. A variation of the `Artistic
License' would be adequate. Basically, if I've done a good bit of
work I want to be acknowledged for it; if I've stuffed up, I want to
know so I can fix it, but I don't want to receive kudos or flack for
other people's work. And if there happens to be a music publishing
company that wants to publish my work (fat chance!), then I don't want
the existence of a freely distributable version to compromise any
contract I may make with them.
Peter C
