Don't mistake me for an authority on this, instead take particular
notice to the following line:
#include <disclaimer.h>
Now, on to what I wanted to say:
I think this discussion are getting way off target here. As I
understand the GPL, there's nothing in it that prevents anybody from
making money from GPL'd software. In fact, if Microsoft decided to
sell licences of gcc for, say $1000 no-one would (or at least have
legal opportunity to) try to prevent them. The only restriction is
that Microsoft (or anyone else) could not prevent someone else from
selling (or giving away) copies of the same version of gcc as
Microsoft sells. And this restriction would also be valid for any
additions or modifications Microsoft makes to gcc, since the GPL
explicitly says that derived works also must be covered by the same
license.
So, if you don't want Pepsi to use your song in a tv-commercial, you'd
better use some other license then GPL, because Pepsi could simply
make their ad GPL'd (which probably suites them fine, nobody wants to
restrict distribution of an ad!), and use your music to their hearts
contents.
Also, if you want to make money from GPL'd music, you have all the
same problems as the folks who are trying to make money from GPL'd
software, in other words, just forget it. The only practical means to
make money of GPL'd software I've seen are:
(a:) Sell support (obviously not useful for music, but probably live
performances could fit in the same category)
(b:) Sell distribution CD's (could work reasonably well, but most
likely people would buy compilation CD's from companies doing just
that, not directly from the artists)
(c:) Sell T-shirts, coffemugs, whatever... (which would probably work
just as bad as for the software guys, unless your music is
*really* popular).
(d:) Donations from happy users (ehh... listeners)
(e:) Contract-work that both parties agree to GPL when finished
(comparable to special compositions for some (big) event).
And of course nothing prevents anyone else from doing (a:), (b:), (c:)
or (d:) above without asking for permission from the artist. If you
don't approve of that, then the GPL is not for you.
Don't misunderstand me, I'll be the first to applaude anyone GPLing
music or any other work. But don't expect to be rich, or to be able to
control distribution of your work that way. (Well, at least there's a
theoretical possibility that you can get rich, but there's absolutely
no way you can control distribution and use of you work).
As for the last problem with the GPL, it speaks a lot of
"software". Wether this would apply to music and other kind of
artworks is certainly unclear, but at least there seems to be a
resonable interpretation for non-lawyers. The *big* problem is that
the GPL also says you have to distribute source-code. GPL gives the
following definition of source code:
GPL>The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
GPL>making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
GPL>code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
GPL>associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
GPL>control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
GPL>special exception, the source code distributed need not include
GPL>anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
GPL>form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
GPL>operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
GPL>itself accompanies the executable.
Now, what does that mean for music? In the case of say
csound-compositions it means the source-code and samples you use. If
it's a MIDI-composition it could probably be interpreted as the kind
of file your sequencer saves as default (as opposed to the
.mid-file). But there the analogy stops. If it's played with real
musicians "source-code" could be interpreted as:
(a:) sheet music
(b:) 8-track tape
(c:) some vague idea one of the band-members had, including lyrics
(d:) the collective minds of those musicians performing the work
Especially definition (d:) seems appropriate for improvisational
works, which are not unusual at all. But it seems to be a big problem
of distributing that (unless you see the collective mind as it is
captured in the music, but that would probably be a stretch :-)
I'd say that until some smart lawyer with the right political mindset
makes something similar to the GPL that works for
non-computer-generated artworks, you can just as well distribute the
work as PD. The only thing you loose is that the GPL gives anyone the
right to enforce derived works to be GPL'd. Maybe one could make a
EMGPL (even more general public license) that simpy covers
intellectual works (not restricted to software) by whatever legal
definition that has (don't ask me!). In that case source-code would
have no meaning at all (which for many purposes, even for actual
computer software is appropriate).
-Jo
