And again to the list
Mats Bengtsson wrote: > > I think this is a very good idea actually - I'd go as far to say it would > > be simplest if we restrict submissions to Mutopia to one of three licenses: > > > > 1) Public Domain (already being used - must be used if music is entirely > > out of copyright) > > 2) A BSD Style license which we write and put on the website > > 3) A copyleft license (still to be decided) > > > > This makes it easier for submitters (they don't have to make up their own > > BSD Style license if they want to use one) and people downloading the music > > (they can see clearly from the table of music exactly which license is > > being used). Does this make sense? I think the Mutopia Project should really have a single licence policy. That would make it much simpler for all and clearcut. What is the purpose after all ? How did they handle the licencing issue on the Gutemberg project ? Does anyone know ? I would go for a licence that allows performing for money but completely forbids royalties even of modified pieces. > I kind of agree that it's practical to have a few standard formulations. > However, there are cases where it might be necessary to add some > extra lines. One example is a score I typeset where the library owning > the manuscript requested that they would be acknowledged in the > edition. That does not have to form part of the licence. If you take for instance the GNU GPL for software, they specifically say you can add your company/private specifics at the end of the licence provided it does not conflict and/or alter licencing terms. Simply acknowledging the source has never altered licencing terms and is recognised practice. Regards, Alain.
