Here is one of those mixed albums: http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/storyId-1077/p-RPM_CD_Image_Ready_for_Download/view.story.blog
License Summary: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License: 1,6,8 = 3 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License: 3,4,5,9,10 = 5 Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License: 2,7,11 = 3 Free = 8 Non-Free=3 http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/siteId-1043/topicId-3114/messages.forum.minisite I suggested we all do BY-SA but it did not work out that way. all the best, drew On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Matt Lee<[email protected]> wrote: > Ted Smith wrote: > >> This comes back to the same question, though: what if an album is >> composed of some free tracks, and some non-free tracks? Does that >> qualify as free or non free? What if an artist began distributing >> non-free music, but later changed to a free model, are they always a >> "non-free artist"? > > We'd list the free tracks like we list other free tracks. We'd list the > non-free ones as we list Radiohead, The Beatles, etc. > > If an artist releases free music, they should be rewarded, regardless of > what they did previously. We have to assume that this will be the case > for virtually every musician. > > FWIW, I've yet to see one of these 'mixed' albums... > _______________________________________________ > Libre-fm mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/libre-fm > -- http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Libre-fm mailing list [email protected] http://lists.autonomo.us/mailman/listinfo/libre-fm
