tim hall wrote:
>On Thursday 18 August 2005 16:15, Brad Fuller wrote:
>
>
>>>Until we make a decision not to accept non-CC submissions to the list you
>>>should assume that a piece is copyright the author and all rights reserved
>>>unless explicitly licensed otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I would change to: "... unless explicitly licensed and stated otherwise."
>>
>>This is fair, unambiguous and similar in concept to the US copyright -
>>you write a tune, you automatically own the copyright, you're not
>>required to file for ownership. I think it should always be the case.
>>
>>(i guess we could also talk about the mechanical and publishing rights
>>as well. But, it seems that it would follow the same policy.)
>>
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>I don't actually think it's necessary to make policy on this issue, just
>encourage people to state the licensing position clearly and continue to
>encourage the use of free licensing. Making things mandatory can be
>counter-productive in the pursuit of freedom.
>
>
I agree with that.
I think people should assume that all forms of copyrights and all rights
are held by the composer unless otherwise stated. I certainly don't want
people to assume that just because the music is made with FOSS they can
do anything they please with the posted assets.
brad
Received on Fri Aug 19 00:15:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 19 2005 - 00:15:06 EEST