Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] The Open Music Resource Library - Licensing
From: Darren Landrum (consul_AT_studioconsul.net)
Date: Fri Jan 03 2003 - 18:17:48 EET
Responses embedded. Thanks!
-Darren
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> 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.
I don't think that's necessarily true. You can still write and
distribute a PD patch that uses the loops. You just couldn't include
the loops themselves. But your point is made, nonetheless.
Also, the use of the loops in a game falls under the "final product"
use of the license, and would not be affected by the redistribution
restriction.
> 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 is an interesting idea. Any other thoughts?
Regards,
Darren Landrum
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jan 03 2003 - 18:15:54 EET