Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] [ot] Is DJ-ing commercial use of music tracks?
From: Daniel James (daniel_AT_mondodesigno.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 2004 - 13:19:08 EET
> > I
> > would guess that a tiny minority of libre software users have
> > read the GPL from start to finish.
>
> It's small fry compared with many commercial EULA's.
But then no-one reads those either - and look at the trouble that
causes!
> > We need poets, not lawyers, writing licences.
>
> That's fine until push comes to shove and the licence gets tested
> in court.....
A good licence won't have to be tested in court - by the time you've
got into the legal system, no-one benefits except the lawyers. If the
licence is clear and simple to understand, there's no scope for
argument.
> You
> could also have a 2-part GPL, with one (short) part about copying
> the software and a second part which 99% of users don't need to
> read, about modifying the software.
That's a good idea. Let's see what GPL v3 brings.
> > As for contacting copyright holders before commercial use, that
> > gives me the option to say no to something like a bit of my music
> > being used in a TV advert, for example. I might not approve of
> > the association with the product
>
> There you're way out of the domain of the GPL, which explicitly
> forbids any discrimination about how the software is *used*, and is
> only about copying.
Quite - but then the GPL was written for software, not music. We can
draw parallels, but ultimately they are not the same.
Cheers
Daniel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 28 2004 - 13:19:19 EET