<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ben Finney wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20050815103013.GO22611@benfinney.id.au" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 14-Aug-2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For music, I'd say that a simple `verbatim copying' license would be
enough.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Verbatim only? That fails to grant freedom to modify and redistribute.
Do you think such a license should be called "free"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Hello :)<br>
<br>
I don't know if it can be usefull to the discussion but I believe
CC-by-sa (attribution- sharealike) is fine for artists who want a
"GPL-like" licence for arts.<br>
<br>
An example of what is possible thanks to the "GPL-like freedoms" for
music:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://francois.schnell.free.fr/wordpress/?p=9">http://francois.schnell.free.fr/wordpress/?p=9</a><br>
<br>
An example of a website with CC-by-sa musics and derivatives works:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.opsound.org/">http://www.opsound.org/</a><br>
<br>
francois<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20050815103013.GO22611@benfinney.id.au" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Why should music users get less freedom over a work than users of GPL
programs?
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org">Discussion@fsfeurope.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion">https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>