Ben Finney wrote:
On 14-Aug-2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
For music, I'd say that a simple `verbatim copying' license would be enough.
Verbatim only? That fails to grant freedom to modify and redistribute. Do you think such a license should be called "free"?
Hello :)
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.
An example of what is possible thanks to the "GPL-like freedoms" for music: http://francois.schnell.free.fr/wordpress/?p=9
An example of a website with CC-by-sa musics and derivatives works: http://www.opsound.org/
francois
Why should music users get less freedom over a work than users of GPL programs?
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion