[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages with non-original copyrighted sounds

Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment@gmx.net>

>  * the right to publicly display the work (in its physical form)
>    (e.g. a painting),
>  * (*NEW*) the right to make the work available to the public (on
>    demand, on a computer network) 

> The DFSG does not really care about these things,

In practise the license evaluation on debian-legal cares about all
these, though in default of evidence to the contrary, we assume that
the author intends to include them when he allows "modifications and
distribution" in general. However, if a license were to explicitly
explude, say, public performance from the rights it grants, I'm fairly
sure that d-l would unanimously consider it non-free.

(We would probably be somewhat divided on the question of whether we
accept a license that demands disclosure of source in exchange for
public performance of [a modified] work, but that is another matter).

> the GPL and the BSD would not qualify as "free" if applied on 
> non-program-works.

How do you reach that conclusion? One of the classic scenarios we
apply to licenses in general (when the issue comes up) is "suppose
I wanted to take the source code for this program and use it as
part of a painting" - then we want to be sure that the painting itself
could be Free in a useful way.

Henning Makholm                     "That's okay. I'm hoping to convince the
                      millions of open-minded people like Hrunkner Unnerby."

Reply to: