Free Music License?

[MJ Ray]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams at gnu.org> wrote:
>    Verbatim only? That fails to grant freedom to modify and
>    redistribute.  Do you think such a license should be called "free"?
> 
> Because music is not a functional work, and you don't need the right
> to `modify' it, you can have it, but it is not a nessecary right.
> Where as with software, it is.

Who is Alfred M. Szmidt - someone who does not even see fit to
attribute the previous author quoted - to decide that we don't
"need" the right to modify music but do with programs?

[...]
> The is the same problem that Debian faces, labeling everything as
> `free software', and then excluding everything that doesn't fall into
> that category (like free doucmnetation, free music, etc).

The problem debian faces is that software which is not free software
sometimes gets included in the distribution. It's not a new problem.
Even if terms such as "free documentation" can be defined in a sane
way, debian doesn't currently use them.

-- 
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/