1. Should we use OCL iso. GPL?
I don't think so. The OCL in the form I last read has a problem: it
permits only gratis redistribution. That means people could not sell
a collection of these on a CD-ROM. We don't accept this restriction
for free software, and I think we should not accept it for free music
either.
3. Should we distinguish between the printed output, postscript
files, and input?
If you use the GPL, the "input" probably counts as the source code,
and the other things probably count as a kind of object code. The GPL
does treat them differently, mainly in requiring distribution of
machine-readable source code.
I don't see a *need* to require the publication of scores in
machine-readable form. Whether it is beneficial to make that
requirement, I am not sure. It would require that anyone who
publishes the scores on paper must distribute them in machine-readable
form also; is that a problem? Do you want people to be able to
publish these scores only on paper, without ever publishing them in
any other form?
> 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.
I hope you won't agree to this restriction against selling copies of
the scores.
If we these works in the same archive as the free ones, that would
cause confusion.
Yes, that is definitely so.
On the other hand, if composers want to spread their works of art, maybe
we ought to have a channel for that.
They have lots of other channels to do so, with or without your
participation. You can do something much more important by standing
firm than by bending over to accommodate them.
After all the GNU project also
has texts that carry notices "Verbatim Reproduction allowed"
Modification is a different issue.
In GNU, we use verbatim-copying-only licenses for articles about our
philosophy, our legal position, or order forms, etc. But not for
software or manuals.
Music being an artistic work, meant for appreciation and not to be
"run", it might be legitimate to permit verbatim copying only. On the
other hand, isn't it normal for musicians to make new arrangements of
existing pieces? So wouldn't this restriction stop musicians
from doing what they normally do?
Copyright has special rules for music, and it may be that modification
is simply permitted.
Perhaps we can add an advertisement clause, like
Advertising materials using this Work must display the
following acknowledgement
I think you can do much more than that. Use of the piece for
advertising is covered by different laws that don't apply to ordinary
distribution. I think it is ethically legitimate to simply forbid use
of your music *for advertising*, while at the same time saying that
everyone's allowed to redistribute it simply as a piece of music.
And it may be legally possible as well.
If that's what you want to do, I can ask a lawyer to give advice
on how to do it.
