On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:11:39PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Ben Finney ben@benfinney.id.au wrote:
On 14-Aug-2005, Roland H=E4der wrote:
[...] But you cannot compare music with software nor documentation. Music is different to them.
It's not different under copyright law though. If you want to grant the same freedoms, you can use the same license for *all* your software: programs, documentation, music, images, data, ...
I agree with the general point: we shouldn't rely on distinguishing bit streams to determine which standard of freedom applies. Sadly, some copyright laws do distinguish documentation and music, but I'm still not sure whether it's enough to require different licences.
From the legal point of view, I am quite convinced that there is enough difference to warrant different licenses.
Getting to the social point and the freedom: This is an unanswered question with contributions from several hundered years of debate. With Software finding the balance intellectually, is fairly easy, because it has a very new level of being funcational.
Melodies, Songs, Lyrics, Literature, News reports, law texts, essays they are have a different role in our society that might require a slightly different balance. Saying this all can be represented as a bitstream and thus should be treated the same is makeing life too simpley and disregards the knowledge about their role thate we have already aquired.
Bernhard