Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Free Music licenses: which to choose?
From: Ross Vandegrift (ross_AT_willow.seitz.com)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 14:16:23 EEST
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 06:03:08PM -0700, Graham Percival wrote:
> Is this a valid
> concern, or just a wild hypothesis? :)
I think your concern could be quite valid, and thinking about it is
> Does anybody have a favourite Free Music License? Right now I'm leaning
> towards the EFF's OAL, but I really don't like their idea that you should
> use (O) instead of (c).
Well, I think it depends. First, the music I've released was put out
under the Open Content License, without either option exercised. The
reason behind this, is that the Open Content License, without either
option exercised, is GPL compatable. So this makes it pretty easy to
understand the ramifications, and easy to gauge how "interoperable" your
However, depending on your music, it may be appropriate to use the GPL.
The GPL can be applied in any case that has some kind of "source code".
If your music is computer-generated, your MIDI/MOD/whatever files could
clearly count as the source. OTOH, if your music is a digital
recording of an actual instrument, the definition doesn't apply)
-- Ross Vandegrift ross_AT_willow.seitz.com
A Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon. He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon. Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 19:09:58 EEST