Bernd Warken wrote:
> Next, the MutopiaBSD license looks quite good, but is it fool-proof
> against theft or malicious attacks? I do not know, but chances are
> that the GNU copyleft people have more experience and their FDL has
> superior security aspects.
I take your point, MutopiaBSD is not a copyleft license. But different
types of material require different freedoms; for instance, Richard
Stallman has commented that the right to modify a novel might not be
important. It has proved hard to find an existing license which
guarantees the freedoms we want for music and also provides copyleft
protection; I'm not sure the FDL guarantees the freedoms for music.
I completely agree that copyleft would be good if possible, but if the
choice was between a license which was over-restrictive and one which
was under-restrictive, I would choose the under-restrictive license.
But I do appreciate the issue you raise; I don't regard BSD as a
perfect solution.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> The fear was, as I'm sure you understand, that the FDL would fit
> mutopia content just about as bad as the GPL. For people that are not
> familar with the GPL, the MutopiaBSD is easier to digest. Maybe we
> should ask if the FSF, in casu rms, could advise on this.
Bernd Warken wrote:
> For music of composers that died more than 70 years ago, performance
> is free, being guaranteed by international laws. So it is not
> necessary to specify performance aspects for old music in the license.
That is interesting; I don't think I've heard anything like that before.
The issue would be if a Mutopia typist tried to subsequently claim that
a performance contained some of the creativity of his/her typesetting.
Maybe we should ask if the FSF lawyer could comment.
--
David
_______________________________________________
Gnu-music-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-music-discuss