Le 01/01/2011 22:45, Michael Ellis a écrit : > 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. >
Hi Michael, Personnally, because your work is based on scripts, i'll put a GPL'ed license. But I haven't to give you a piece of advice. Even I don't know if you can mix the CC-NC-SA with GPL both in a work > 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!" > We have exactly the same intent. I'll say: for students of music, artists or musicologists > 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? > Yes. And there is a recommandation from the FSF to use this license for artistic purposes. Just a recommandation. Not more. > 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. > I agree. Bach and a free license are just my condition for this kind of work. > Cheers, > Mike Cheers. Phil. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
