On Mon, 17 May 1999, Kevin Shrieve wrote:
> >Richard Stallman, the founder of GNU, thinks in the future musicians
> >will be able to make money by having their music downloadable for free,
> >with voluntary micropayments if you like it (just a few pence/cents).
>
> Yes, I suspect there will be a zillion ways for clever people to make a
> living (though maybe not a killing) as music makers while allowing free
> distribution/re-use of the digital versions of their works.
Jaron Lanier is working on something like this for music at musicisum.com,
and I think it's based on the exact ideas we've been talking about (the
press release said something about "using open business practices proven in
the software industry").
> >He doesn't seem to think that the GPL is all that applicable to music,
>
> Well, would you say that the fact that he's placed Michael's "Applying
> Copyleft To Non-Software Information" in the philosophy directory at
> gnu.org (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html) indicates
> that he actually does see its applicability?
Sometimes he is very open to the idea -- especially as it can benefit his
own needs, such as with GNU software documentation, sounds and images used
in GNU software packages, etc., but in my experience he wavers on this issue
depending on his mood and I don't think he's quite ready to endorse copyleft
for music or anything else just yet. In the end, I don't think we should
wait for FSF approval, although there are subtle changes he can make to the
GPL to eliminate its use in anything but program source code. If this
happens, we'd be stuck with using version 2 or coming up with a new license,
but then the problem arises of getting lawyers and money involved to draft
and defend the license. Maybe a "free information foundation" will be
necessary, building on the free software heritage and learning from the
mistakes of the free software/open source movement.
Sometimes RMS says that only software should be copylefted because it isn't
one's "thoughts and ideas," but merely "a set of instructions for working a
computer" (paraphrasing here, not his exact words); I think he's scared of
someone changing his words against his will, even though a modified work has
to clearly state that it is as such, as mandated by the GPL. (He was really
angry at the guy who did the cool remix to that free software song last
year.) But program source code _is_ both data and one's thoughts and ideas,
as much as recorded music or English text is; a computer will store and
allow copy and modification of any kind of of data equally well and without
prejudice to the type of data.
