Hi Phil, Thanks for the input. I've sent email to Margaret (whom I don't know personally) asking her thoughts about the licensing. I've not yet heard back from her.
I confess I went with a strong non-commercial clause largely in deference to her work and the claims on her website. It's a lot easier to loosen a license later than to tighten it after the work is "in the wild". I have to say that the whole copyright issue here is quite confusing. As you point out, the author of the works is long dead and published editions exist that were never under copyright or have lapsed into the public domain. I'm certainly not trying to assert any copyright to Bach's work or Margaret's for that matter. I do claim some right to the LilyPond files themselves, or perhaps better to say, the organization of the files to produce the solfege, etc, but I'm not sure how to properly express that or, to be truthful, whether it's even worth the bother. I suspect you may have more experience than I in these areas. I really want to find out how Margaret feels about this before changing the license. My primary intent here is to provide a useful resource for students of music and I don't want to get into a copyright dispute with anyone. As the Chinese proverb says "In death avoid hell, in life avoid the law courts!" I have not encountered the Free Art license before. From a quick glance at the wikipedia description, it sounds almost identical to the Creative Commons license with only the Attribution and ShareAlike clauses but without the Non-commercial clause. Is that correct? Finally, however the copyright on my work sorts itself out, I'll be happy to include your work on my site under whatever copyright terms you like. Still, since we're working on the same chorales it would be great if we can find a way to combine our efforts to produce the best possible editions. Cheers, Mike On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Phil Hézaine <philippe.heza...@free.fr>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
