On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:08:38PM +0100, Phil Hézaine wrote: > 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.
Interesting. > Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments? Well, if she made any editorial changes, the result is not in the public domain. Arguably, even simply making unintentional "data entry" changes could be enough for the result to be under copyright. > 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? Unless they created an "urtext" edition, then yes, the notes and markings are under copyright. Even if they created an "urtext" edition, the actual layout of music on the page is under copyright. In the latter case, typing the notes into a text file (for processing with lilypond) does not infringe copyright, whereas making a photocopy would infringe. > Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without > infringements between the GPL and her license? No. GPL does not allow you to play additional restrictions on the distribution of material; the CC-NC has an extra restriction ("no commercial use"). > For now I plan to publish the 371 chorals from Breitkopf with a Free Art > license, Have you checked that the Breitkopf edition is free from copyright? Mutopia has a good short discussion about this: http://www.mutopiaproject.org/contribute.html Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user