> > The copyright *is* the license, which belongs exclusively > > to the copyright holder. That's the whole idea of a copyright. Don't > > attempt to share it with all and sundry, only with BMI/ASCAP or the like > if > > you want. A user license would amount to assigning it. > > Sorry, I didn't understand the 2 last sentences (limited English skills).
I don't understand them either (native English speaker, 38 years experience :-]). Licenses and copyrights are not the same. A license is essentially permission to do something. When you invite someone over for dinner, you're giving them a license to come over to your house. (That's a common example of what a license is in real estate textbooks.) You can't have them arrested for trespassing, since they have a license to use your property. If you own the copyright on a piece of intellectual property, you have the ability to grant a license to use it, in much the same way you can grant licenses to use any type of property that you own. This is from an American point of view - haven't the faintest idea what European/Asian/etc concepts look like. - James _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
