Free Music License?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > For music, I'd say ithat 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"?

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.

And labeling everything with `free', when one speaks of the freedoms
that govern free software, will only cloud the discussion, so please
don't say `free' when you really mean `free software'.

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).

   Why should music users get less freedom over a work than users of
   GPL programs?

Music and software are different, comparing the blindly will only lead
to problems.

Cheers.