Hi Michael and all, Copy from the previous discussion: Le 31/12/2010 20:33, Michael Ellis a écrit : > Hi Phil, > The problem is pretty well solved. I'm just cleaning up a few things > in my scripts today. > > I don't have all the answers yet regarding copyrights. Margaret > Greentree's site seems to claim copyrights only to the PDF images > > > and those are freely shared for non-commercial use. So I'm not quite > sure how that might apply to works derived from the MusicXML files. > > My thought was to release my versions with attribution to her and a > Creative Commons license with similar conditions -- free use for > non-commercial purposes with attribution and share-alike. > > Initially, I'm going to put the files into a googlecode site so it's > easy to allow more than one person to edit them. I'll be happy to add > your name to the list of "developers" for the site. Later on, I want > to put up a free site that can serve PDF, midi, and mp3 files. > > Looking forward to working with you! > > Cheers, > Mike
It's not my goal to begin a troll or flames war but i'm a bit stumpled with the licence. I have great respect for your choice and Margaret Greentree who is a passionate artist but I want to explain my thoughts. I have no problem with a Creative Commons - non-commercial license when the copyright is 'alive'. I have even used it for one of my own work for the main reason that I want to impose a percentage of redistribution for Free Software or humanitarians goals in case of a commercial product, even for one song. If you agree to this clause you get an authorization and all is right. It's the rules of the game. Not completely closed but... Anyway, this clause didn't suit me very well with a virtual band from linux-audio on internet. At this time they were Free like zealots. But in the case under discussion the copyright is 'dead', and i don't see a valuable explanation on the site for the non-commercial use. Hence my questions. Moreover, there are chorals which aren't changed from the Public Domain. I've checked some of it against my sources. Well, only a little bit. And i'm not sure of the data integrity of her typesetting. Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments? What a shame that Margaret Gentree is not on this list. We could have a better understanding. Are Barenreiter or Musica Budapest's sources closed? I don't know for now. Is there a special wish with the license? We don't know. Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without infringements between the GPL and her license? Like I said it's not at all a flames war, but there are too many questions about this. Would you like some more? I'm neither a professional engraver nor an editor but I'll agree with a professional publishing of the chorals, whether it happens. With a Free Art License, for example, we need of an advanced (progressive) editor who accepts to publish a book while the sources are available for free on internet. One of the deeper feature of Lilypond is the mutation of the traditional engraving towards a computerized engraving. And all of this is GNU, it's worth thinking about. Even more when a copyright is 'dead'. Or I'm missing something? To Michael: I'm not at all a dev, a programmer, rather a poet of the free culture and an average user of Lilypond. I'm very far away from having your knowledge and your 'savoir-faire' in this area. For now I plan to publish the 371 chorals from Breitkopf with a Free Art license, and if all is right, to publish a different organisation of the same sources later. If you agree to include this stuff on your site, it will be a pleasure. Be sure i appreciate your work. Cheers. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
