Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Free Music licenses: which to choose?
From: Graham Percival (gperlist_AT_shaw.ca)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 23:53:22 EEST
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:43:52 +0200
Christian Schoenebeck <christian.schoenebeck_AT_epost.de> wrote:
> Es geschah am Samstag, 28. September 2002 02:01 als Graham Percival
> schrieb:> I'd like to allow people to copy, modify, and distribute my
> > music, provided that they allow other people to do the same to their
> > material. I definately want the "viral" nature of GPL -- if I
> > release(sheet) music as public domain or a BSD-like license, then a
> > company could (theoretically) hire some musicians to record it, make
> > a CD, and then sue anybody who distributes that over the 'net (a la
> > RIAA). I'm certainly not opposed to commercial use of my music, but
> > I want to get royalties when that happens.
> What about this license:
> You can use, copy and (re)distribute my work as long as you do
> not make money out of it. The latter is only permitted by my
> prior written authorization. Contact me on any ambiguities
> regarding this license.
> I don't see the need for hundred of sides full license agreements.
> Leave that for boring lawyers without hobbies. It hink the above
> should catch all important cases.
No, the license agreement *is* important. Look at GPL -- the basic idea
is "I'll share my stuff with you if you agree to share it with others".
But there's a reason why the full text is something like 8k. Give a
lawyer a centimeter of wiggle room and he'll take a kilometer. Or
something like that. :)
I'd like to have a good license agreement, which I'd summarise in one or
two lines. What you posted is a good summary, but it wouldn't work as
the actual license.
Here's a few loopholes in your license:
- if I (speaking now as a laywer) don't try to make money off of
Graham's music, then I can copy and modify it and claim that _I_ wrote
- I can copy it, modify it, and then release it with a very
- I can copy it and place it in a "members only"
portion of my business partner's website. *I'm* not making money out of
- that license is not Free because it doesn't allow others to modify the
work. That's easily fixed by adding `modify' near the beginning: "you
can use, modify, copy, and (re)distribute..."
My other concern, that many of the Free licenses can't work together, is
still valid. For as long as I live, somebody can ask me "is it ok if I
use your work in my Design Science-licenesed project" and I can reply
"yes, I give you permission for that", but if I die -- and a few
contributers to Free software have unfortunately done so already -- then
that option is lost.
Writing a good Free license that can't be exploited isn't all that easy,
which is one reason why it might be good to have one or two "main" free
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Sep 28 2002 - 23:58:23 EEST