Michael Ossmann wrote:
> Licenses to consider (off the top of my head):
>
> - GPL (http://www.gnu.org/)
> - LGPL (http://www.gnu.org/)
> - OCL (http://www.opencontent.org/)
> - OPL (http://www.opencontent.org/)
> - DSL (http://www.dsl.org/)
> - CPDL License (http://www.cpdl.org/)
> - anything else we come up with
GPL/LGPL are good but software specific.
OCL, I just checked looks pretty good but lacks the 'performance/interpretation'
tidbit, this could be added to form a different licence.
DSL, I just checked refers to performance/interpretation so this would be the
best fit so far. It seems to follow pretty much the spirit of the GPL translated
to content a bit like the OCL but in more adapted for Mutopia needs. However
very little emphasis is placed on the performance and recording is not
mentionned.
The CPDL is pretty good and says everything we need except the wording Public
Domain could be exploited as someone else already pointed out on this list. Also
the title is specific to Choir works. We need to change the wording in a more
general way.
I mix of CPDL/DSL/OCL in order of decreasing importance should lead us where we
want.
> Since Mutopia is associated with a GNU project, I think it would be
> appropriate to completely follow the spirit of the FSF. In my opinion,
> that would mean excluding any license which allows a composer to require
> royalties for performances or audio recordings.
I agree.
Regards,
Alain Culos.
