Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
2007/5/15, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... How about: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work except as part of the game and you may not distribute the Work except with the intention of it being used with the Game. and 1. g.: The Game means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of Frets on Fire. Sounds good to me. All (including the debian-legal folks): What do you think? Do Matthew's proposed changes look OK? (Feel free to reply to me privately. If anyone does so, I will summarize the results and send them out to everyone involved with FoF packaging issues.) -- Jason Spiro: Linux consultant, web developer, Windows corporate trainer. No job too big or too small, whether 2 hours or 2 months. Contact me for info; to see my resume, send email with subject line resume. +1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
On Tue May 15 17:25, Jason A. Spiro wrote: But one question: Do those license terms allow the songs to be distributed in a separate Debian package from the primary fretsonfire package? No, it will have to be amended to allow this as was suggested elsewhere in this thread. What if the song package Depends on fretsonfire?[1] What if it Recommends it?[2] I think our current model has fretsonfire-data-foo depending on fretsonfire. If the licence says these songs may only be used with fretsonfire and it's derivatives then that's clear whatever the package manager says. How about: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work except as part of the game and you may not distribute the Work except with the intention of it being used with the Game. and 1. g.: The Game means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of Frets on Fire. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
2007/4/27, Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/4/27, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] How about using: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work except as part of the game. and 1. g.: The Game means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of Frets on Fire. Sounds like a better idea than using the license I wrote :) Though if we want to distribute the game in main and the music in non-free shouldn't we write the 4. d. clause more liberally? How about You may not distribute the Work except in a form meant to be used with The Game. (That'd mean except e.g. with frets data included alongside the music; can anyone suggest a better phrasing?) Or, how about this phrasing instead? You may only distribute the Work if You intend that the work be used with game software. This allows for the possibility of the Work to be used in other computer games. What do you all think? Hi all. After I wrote the above message I quoted above, Tommi replied to me privately. He'd prefer that the music only be used in either FoF, or maybe in FoF and its derivatives. If we allow use in FoF derivatives, he wants to look over the license to check that he's OK with it. So, for now, let's use the terms Matthew proposed above. But one question: Do those license terms allow the songs to be distributed in a separate Debian package from the primary fretsonfire package? What if the song package Depends on fretsonfire?[1] What if it Recommends it?[2] Regards, Jason [1] This, of course, will cause Debian to install fretsonfire if it isn't already installed. [2] This usually will cause Debian to pull in fretsonfire, unless users tell aptitude not to, or unless they use a package manager that doesn't automatically pull in Recommends. -- Jason Spiro: Linux consultant, web developer, Windows corporate trainer. No job too big or too small, whether 2 hours or 2 months. Contact me for info; to see my resume, send email with subject line resume. +1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
El jueves, 26 de abril de 2007 a las 16:25:40 -0400, Jason Spiro escribía: I have dropped Tommi, Sami and Joonas from the Cc because I don't think they want to be bothered too much with this kind of things, and only care about the results. Feel free to correct me if that isn't the case. * Persons distributing the Work to the general public may only do so if the Work is distributed and/or bundled with game software. If the songs must be distributed and/or bundled with the game, then it is not allowed to distribute the game in main and the songs in non-free. In fact, one could say they cannot even be in different packages. If I were to draft such a license, I'd allow unlimited distribution, allow to change the storage format and/or medium of the songs but only allow use, public performance, etc., in games. Also, I'd suggest not making a non-free license look similar to a free license :-) -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
On Thu Apr 26 21:16, Jason Spiro wrote: I don't know much about how to write licenses, and this is the first one I have ever written. I figured that everything after the subject to the following conditions: would automatically override the initial permissions I gave. I guess I was wrong? This is a very very good reason not to write your own. debian-legal always advises against doing so. How about using: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work except as part of the game. and 1. g.: The Game means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of Frets on Fire. This would, of course, have to be renamed something else, but it is good to make as small modifications as possible. It would also need t be run past debian-legal and Teosto's legal team. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
2007/4/27, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu Apr 26 21:16, Jason Spiro wrote: I don't know much about how to write licenses, and this is the first one I have ever written. I figured that everything after the subject to the following conditions: would automatically override the initial permissions I gave. I guess I was wrong? This is a very very good reason not to write your own. debian-legal always advises against doing so. How about using: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/legalcode with 4. d. added saying: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work except as part of the game. and 1. g.: The Game means the game Frets on Fire or a derivative work of Frets on Fire. Sounds like a better idea than using the license I wrote :) Though if we want to distribute the game in main and the music in non-free shouldn't we write the 4. d. clause more liberally? How about You may not distribute the Work except in a form meant to be used with The Game. (That'd mean except e.g. with frets data included alongside the music; can anyone suggest a better phrasing?) Or, how about this phrasing instead? You may only distribute the Work if You intend that the work be used with game software. This allows for the possibility of the Work to be used in other computer games. What do you all think? This would, of course, have to be renamed something else... How does Frets On Fire Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial-ForFretsOnly 1.0 license sound? Cheers, Jason -- Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile. I provide software development and training services to clients worldwide. Contact me for a FREE consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed. +1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
2007/3/28, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue Mar 27 20:54, Jason Spiro wrote: 2007/3/27, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if Teosto wrote one? The following is what I would use if I were to license my own compositions[1] for distribution in Debian: I'm sure you realize Teosto would consider the BSD license far too liberal, and forbid it. :-) Seriously, do you think my idea of writing a license has merit? Such a licence would not get the songs in main, though. I imagine it would fail DFSG 6 and possibly 3. It would get them in non-free though which would allow the rest of the game in contrib or, if we managed to find some free songs to go with it, in main. Tommi has told me in a private email he doesn't want people to modify his music, which is reasonable although it means the music won't be DFSG-Free. I have cobbled together a possible license you could use. The license text is pasted below. (It is based mostly on parts of the BSD and MIT/Expat licenses and snippets from the GPL, CC-BY-ND and Open Font licenses and some of my own words. I hereby release the license text itself to the public domain.) Tommi, Sami, Joonas, do you think Teosto might possibly be willing to let you distribute the music under the terms below? If so, could you please ask Teosto's lawyer? The music can't get into the Debian non-free repository until we get permission to distribute it. Tommi, the license lets people modify the music, but not rearrange it or change the lyrics. That ensures people will be able to convert it from one audio format into another and such, and to be able to change the speed and/or pitch in case some Frets On Fire Turbo Mode mod comes out that allows that. Are you comfortable if your music is released under those terms? Cheers, --Jason (License text follows.) Copyright (C) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work (the Work) to use, modify, copy, publish, distribute, publicly perform, and/or sublicense copies of the Work, and/or to charge a fee for the physical act of transferring copies, and/or to offer warranty protection for a fee, and/or to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do all of the aforementioned actions, subject to the following conditions: * Persons distributing the Work to the general public may only do so if the Work is distributed and/or bundled with game software. * No person may musically rearrange the Work or modify the lyrics of the Work unless that person obtains permission to do so from either the author or the copyright holder. * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included with all copies or substantial portions of the Work. THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
On Thu Apr 26 16:25, Jason Spiro wrote: Copyright (C) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work (the Work) to use, modify, copy, publish, distribute, publicly perform, and/or sublicense copies of the Work, and/or to charge a fee for the physical act of transferring copies, and/or to offer warranty protection for a fee, and/or to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do all of the aforementioned actions, subject to the following conditions: * Persons distributing the Work to the general public may only do so if the Work is distributed and/or bundled with game software. * No person may musically rearrange the Work or modify the lyrics of the Work unless that person obtains permission to do so from either the author or the copyright holder. This contradicts Permission is hereby granted, ... to use, modify, above. May I suggest using a CCby licence and adding 'may only be distributed with the game' rather than cobbling together your own inconsistent one... Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Could you please forward this proposed license to Teosto? (was: Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs)
Hi Matthew, 2007/4/26, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu Apr 26 16:25, Jason Spiro wrote: Copyright (C) year copyright holders Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work (the Work) to use, modify, copy, publish, distribute, publicly perform, and/or sublicense copies of the Work, and/or to charge a fee for the physical act of transferring copies, and/or to offer warranty protection for a fee, and/or to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do all of the aforementioned actions, subject to the following conditions: * Persons distributing the Work to the general public may only do so if the Work is distributed and/or bundled with game software. * No person may musically rearrange the Work or modify the lyrics of the Work unless that person obtains permission to do so from either the author or the copyright holder. This contradicts Permission is hereby granted, ... to use, modify, above. I don't know much about how to write licenses, and this is the first one I have ever written. I figured that everything after the subject to the following conditions: would automatically override the initial permissions I gave. I guess I was wrong? May I suggest using a CCby licence and adding 'may only be distributed with the game' rather than cobbling together your own inconsistent one... CC-BY-ND doesn't let anyone put additional restrictions on covered works; it says: Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. And we can't use a CC-BY-NC-ND license with additional permissions either: ...the game's music can't be distributed with a CC license. The problem is while the songs can freely be distributed with the game, they can't be distributed or otherwise used independently of the game without a specific license from Teosto.[1] It *is* possible to make new licenses by copying and editing the text of Creative Commons licenses.[2] Perhaps I or someone else could modify the text of CC-BY and add restrictions on redistribution separate from game software, musical rearrangement, and changes to lyrics? But since CC-BY is a much longer license wouldn't it'd be harder to wrap one's head around it in order to modify? Maybe it'd just be easier for us to fix the license I wrote. And then again, I wonder if Teosto will accept *any* license we write. Maybe we should just send them the license I wrote (after it's fixed), ask them if they'll accept it, and if not, ask if they could kindly either change it to their liking or write their own. Maybe it'd be more worth it just to get more DFSG-compliant music out there instead of spending more effort on this. It can't be that hard to find good open-content music and to get the artists to release the individual tracks so we can remix them for FoF, can it? Cheers, Jason [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=383316#125 [2] http://creativecommons.org/policies#license says: We do not assert a copyright in the text of our licenses. Modified versions of our licenses, however, should not be labeled as 'Creative Commons' licenses. [3] For those just tuning into the conversation now: Teosto is the Finnish songwriters' copyright collection agency. They collect royalty payments on behalf of most Finnish musicians. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teosto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Apparently, if you *haven't* signed with any collecting agencies, these folks automatically get the right to collect royalties for you. [...] it stinks to high heaven -- it's one of the political doublespeak moves where you create an organization ostensibly to \protect\ small interests, but the actual effect is calculated to bury them. Establishment of rights charging is a key part of the 'new enclosures' problem that the European Free Alliance and various activist groups have been warning about for years. (I spoke at an European Social Forum workshop on the topic in 2004, for example.) If there is anyone willing to test the validity of these monopolies in general in a EU country's courts, then I'd expect support from a wider political scene, as well as interested projects like CC, SPI and debian. Please keep letting us know how Frets on Fire develops. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
Jason Spiro wrote: 2007/3/28, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/28/07, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). Ouch. As was indicated earlier this seems standard for all performance rights organisations. Does that include performance rights organizations in the United States? (I'm from Canada, and most of the pop music here is from U.S. artists.) I used to think not, but now we have something called SoundExchange. The more I read about it, the less I like it: http://www.soundexchange.com/ Apparently, if you *haven't* signed with any collecting agencies, these folks automatically get the right to collect royalties for you. It is apparently an untested question whether an artist can explicitly opt-out of this right. This question has been asked a few times on the cc-licenses mailing list, and I haven't yet seen a satisfactory answer. Also, how about podsafe music (music liberally-enough licensed to be included in podcasts)? Are small indie artists who haven't entered into contracts with such organizations the only ones who can release music under podsafe licensing terms such as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA? See above. They aren't safe either. The only thing that protects podcasters, is that they are not subject to Sound Exchange royalty collection (i.e. it's the person broadcasting, not the artist that determines that exemption). If so: Are there any interest groups who are run lobbying campaigns against such strict rules? There ought to be. I'm not sure who it is though. The idea is not totally broken -- it's the inability to opt-out (or waive fees for specific works) that makes it unethical, IMHO. As it is, though, it stinks to high heaven -- it's one of the political doublespeak moves where you create an organization ostensibly to protect small interests, but the actual effect is calculated to bury them. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
On Tue Mar 27 20:54, Jason Spiro wrote: 2007/3/27, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if Teosto wrote one? The following is what I would use if I were to license my own compositions[1] for distribution in Debian: I'm sure you realize Teosto would consider the BSD license far too liberal, and forbid it. :-) Seriously, do you think my idea of writing a license has merit? Such a licence would not get the songs in main, though. I imagine it would fail DFSG 6 and possibly 3. It would get them in non-free though which would allow the rest of the game in contrib or, if we managed to find some free songs to go with it, in main. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
* Don Armstrong: Well, it actually seems rather strange to me for an organization which is designed to protect artists disallowing artists from determining how their own works are licensed, This is common practice for organizations that collect royalties on behalf of composers. If you want to create free content, you need to steer clear of them (unless they don't require exclusive exploitation rights, which is the exception). 8-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
On 3/28/07, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/28/07, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it actually seems rather strange to me for an organization which is designed to protect artists disallowing artists from determining how their own works are licensed, so I'm trying to give them the benifit of the doubt here. Do they really? That would mean that all the copyright holders would have given them exclusive licensing rights. Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). I haven't read the full bug log, but has anyone contacted the composers directly? Yes, we have. They are part of the upstream team and their contract forbids them from releasing _anything_ which is not under a licence Teosto agree with. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
On 3/28/07, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). Ouch. As was indicated earlier this seems standard for all performance rights organisations. -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On 3/28/07, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). Ouch. As was indicated earlier this seems standard for all performance rights organisations. Sounds like an easy target for a restraint of trade action. Problem is, you need a guinea-pig, who would be gambling their career on it ... Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
2007/3/28, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/28/07, Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). Ouch. As was indicated earlier this seems standard for all performance rights organisations. Does that include performance rights organizations in the United States? (I'm from Canada, and most of the pop music here is from U.S. artists.) Also, how about podsafe music (music liberally-enough licensed to be included in podcasts)? Are small indie artists who haven't entered into contracts with such organizations the only ones who can release music under podsafe licensing terms such as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA? If so: Are there any interest groups who are run lobbying campaigns against such strict rules? Cheers, Jason Note: I am not sending a cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] this time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes that's the contract you have to sign to be part of Teosto (which you have to do if you ever want to make a living in Finland as a musician). Please, ask Finland's *legislators* if the situation there is really that anti-competitive closed shop. I've heard similar things before, but as I'm not much of a musician and negiotiated a cancellation on my book publishing contract, I've not had to look at these problems for myself. I suspect it is that bad (the EU approach to copyright is a wrong-headed protectionist one at present), but anyway it would be good to make legislators aware that there are creative people who are hindered by this. Monopoly collecting societies seem long overdue a reality check and a reminder that they should work for the composers/authors and not only the legacy publishers. If Teosto has a fundamental objection to releasing music as free software and Teosto approval is an essential requirement, then we either change Teosto or we change free software. I say change Teosto. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
We have a question about the default songs for the guitar-simulation game Frets On Fire. (We would like to get the songs into main if possible; otherwise, into contrib or non-free. But we need to satisfy the Finnish music licensing organization Teosto. The full original thread is at http://bugs.debian.org/383316 ; the most important message of that thread is http://bugs.debian.org/383316#95 .) The question follows: -- Forwarded message -- From: Sami Kyöstilä [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 27 mars 2007 12:43 Subject: Re: FoF package for Debian To: Jason Spiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joonas Kerttula [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tommi Inkilä [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, We finally got in touch with the Teosto lawyer, and he informed us that unfortunately the game's music can't be distributed with a CC license. The problem is while the songs can freely be distributed with the game, they can't be distributed or otherwise used independently of the game without a specific license from Teosto. I wonder if we could draft a license that would fulfill this condition?
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
First off, thanks to all involved for working through this; legal stuff is annoying, but getting it right early makes it all worthwhile in the end. On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: We have a question about the default songs for the guitar-simulation game Frets On Fire. (We would like to get the songs into main if possible; otherwise, into contrib or non-free. But we need to satisfy the Finnish music licensing organization Teosto. I wonder if we could draft a license that would fulfill this condition? There's really no point to drafting such a license, because it would not be acceptable for main, and more to the point, Teosto would have to vet it. Teosto's lawyers should really be the ones spending time and money to do so. (After all, that's what they're paid to do.) What needs to happen for the work to go in main is that Teosto needs to grant for whatever works that they own the copyright for the ability to distribute them under MIT/Expat (or similar) in addition to whatever license they'd use for uses of the work which are not in compliance with MIT/Expat. If it's decided that Teosto cannot be convinced to be slightly less antiquated in their copyright doctrine, then the alternative is to use whatever standard game only redistribution license Teosto uses (or will write) and then distribute them in non-free with game itself in contrib or main, depending on whether it depends upon the songs or has enough songs included to work without them. Don Armstrong [You'll notice that I didn't mention the CC; there is still some debate about its freeness, and if possible, I'd strongly suggest using a less problematic license like MIT/Expat or the GPL.] -- NASCAR is a Yankee conspiracy to keep you all placated so the South won't rise again. -- http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=327 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if Teosto wrote one? The following is what I would use if I were to license my own compositions[1] for distribution in Debian: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work (the Work), to deal in the Work without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Work, and to permit persons to whom the Work is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Work. THE WORK IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE WORK. Don Armstrong 1: If you're feeling generous enough to call them that... -- For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is possible. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choosing a license for Frets on Fire songs
2007/3/27, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Jason Spiro wrote: Maybe if debian-legal or I wrote the license (I have never written a license before, but maybe I could modify the MIT license) we could get Teosto to agree on more liberal terms than we would get if Teosto wrote one? The following is what I would use if I were to license my own compositions[1] for distribution in Debian: I'm sure you realize Teosto would consider the BSD license far too liberal, and forbid it. :-) Seriously, do you think my idea of writing a license has merit? -- Jason Spiro: computer consulting with a smile. I provide software development and training services to clients worldwide. Contact me for a FREE consultation. Satisfaction guaranteed. +1 (416) 781-5938 / Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
