Free Music License?
Alexandre Dulaunoy
alexandre.dulaunoy at ael.be
Mon Aug 15 12:33:29 UTC 2005
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Keeping a single free license in the free community is better for
> the dynamic of the community.
>
> Software, music and documentation, articles, ..., are all different
> kind of works, and need different kind of protections. Applying a
> hammer when you wish to screw in a screw, is well... Silly, to say the
> least. You don't need to be change my article about who much I love
> feries, to say that I don't love them. Fo functional works (software,
> for example) one needs the right for modification, fo non-functional
> (non-technical written works) one doesn't. Music, and a novel, are
> quite similar, and a simple `verbatim copying allowed' is quite
> satisifactory for such works. A manual, or a program, is where you
> need more freedom since it is useful to change a manual, or a program.
> But a manual is very different from a program, so a manual needs to
> define a different set of freedoms.
The subject is a very difficult matter. We got a very similar
discussion in the fsf-france mailing-list sometimes ago without any
conclusion.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-france/2005-05/msg00001.html
(sorry mainly in french but maybe some references could be useful)
I was thinking that the differentiation between functional and
non-functional was easy. But working on various projects, I found that
is not the case following the evolution of usage and distribution of
"digital object". If we want to keep them free, the right of
modification is very important... A nice example is digital
archiving. In digital archiving, you have to protect the data and
meaning of the data. If we take into consideration just the data
(without the meaning) it's already difficult to keep free a work
without making modification (because conversion is often (always?)
modification in digital format).
Another nice example is the representation of an object in 3D for a
free software a game. If you make a modification in the description of
the object (a vertex for example because the render is unable to parse
it), the result (representation) can be the same but the work has been
modified. You can also make modification or conversion of fonts and
keep the same representation of the work.
A lot of non-functional work has a functional description behind. Can
we disallow modification of "non-functional" free work ? or does the
separation make sense today ?
{For me, the questions are still open...}
> Keeping a single license, that is applied to everything, will only
> hurt the community in the long run.
Making new "virtual" boundaries between digital free works will limit
their current and future usage.
IMHO,
adulau
--
** Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) **** http://www.foo.be/ **** 0x44E6CBCD
**/ "To disable the Internet to save EMI and Disney is the moral
**/ equivalent of burning down the library of Alexandria to ensure the
**/ livelihood of monastic scribes." Jon Ippolito.
More information about the Discussion
mailing list