Subject: RE: [linux-audio-user] The Open Music Resource Library - Licensing
From: Mark Knecht (mknecht_AT_controlnet.com)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 17:07:35 EET
I would pay for someone to add value to the way the loops are packaged. 1000
loops in a big directory are not interesting. 100 directories with 10 loops
each is really valuable if those 10 loops work really well together.
Don't ask me why, but I actually do buy most of my Linux distributions even
though I can get them for free. I think lots of people are sort of like me.
I know RH needs to make money to be viable in the future, so I donate a bit
here and there. I suspect that some people, but not all, will do the same
here.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-audio-user-admin_AT_music.columbia.edu
> [mailto:linux-audio-user-admin_AT_music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Frank
> Barknecht
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:07 AM
> To: linux-audio-user_AT_music.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] The Open Music Resource Library -
> Licensing
>
>
> Hi,
> Daniel James wrote:
> > fbar wrote
> > > All open source software
> > > allows selling.
> >
> > There are licences that restrict or ban selling - the Aladin
> Ghostscript
>
> I was referring to the Open Source (tm) guidelines, that say in part 1:
>
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
> giving away the
> software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
> containing
> programs from several different sources. The license shall not
> require a
> royalty or other fee for such sale.
>
> Rationale: By constraining the license to require free
> redistribution,
> we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term
> gains in order
> to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there
> would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
>
> see http://www.opensource.org
>
> Allowing selling or disallowing it makes a fundamental
> difference. If I for
> example write an open source game that uses loops from the OMRL in its
> soundtrack, it could not be part of a distribution like Debian, that many
> companies sell on CD.
>
> If I construct a Pd patch to comfortably play those loops, it could not be
> part of the AGNULA distribution, if it includes the loops, because someday
> AGNULA CD's will get sold.
>
> These are just two simple examples as to what problems the restriction of
> selling could lead. I can think of many more. In the end, with
> this license
> OMRL would be just another sampling library, that restricts distribution.
>
> What about encouraging selling and encouraging distribution? The license
> could have the viral GNU catch, that copying and reselling of a CD's
> contents shall not be restricted by a third party producer. This way, some
> enterprise could make and sell CDs with OMRL, but I and anyone would be
> allowed to copy those for friends and enemies, if one feels the urge to do
> so.
>
> This would be more in the spirit of free software, IMO, and it
> would indeed
> be something new.
>
> Discussion is open.
>
> ciao
> --
> Frank Barknecht
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jan 03 2003 - 17:08:41 EET