Chris Sawer wrote:
(snip)
> o Urtext music or an edition/arrangement which is entirely out of
> copyright.
(snip)
> Now I agree that the latter three would benefit from some sort of
> copylefting, I'm not sure if we could copyright/copyleft the first one
> as it is entirely the work of someone who died over seventy years ago.
> After all, if people want to include it in works that are copyrighted
> (that you can't duplicate), what is to stop them claiming that they
> have just got a copy of Lilypond and entered in the notes themselves?
> It would be like trying to copyleft a text file of an out-of-copyright
> book, which must surely be impossible.
The typesetting itself is copyright. My mudela code of a public domain
tune is my edition. Even if I seek to reproduce exactly some out of
copyright edition it will have aspects that reflect the decisions I make
when coding it as mudela. I would expect that there would be no
difficulty in establishing a copyleft policy on any such works. It's not
the music you'd be copylefting, it's the typesetting as represented by
the mudela code.
> Does anyone have any major objections to placing urtext music on Mutopia
> in the public domain?
I'd have no objection myself ... but it's really up to the `author' of
the mudela code.
Glen Prideaux
