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

Re: Packages with non-original copyrighted sounds

Hi Henning,

On Dienstag 27 Mai 2003 00:16, Henning Makholm wrote:
> 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.

The problem is that propably none of these rights legally counts 
as 'distribution'. As I understand it, 'distribution' means that 
copies (or the original) of the work are offered to the public 
or that a member of the public receives a copy (or the original) 
of the work, either temporarily or permanently. So, e.g. showing 
people a movie would not be a distribution.

The assumption reminds me of the Debian Legal beginner's 
assumption that every program that can be downloaded free of 
charge can be freely redistributed.

> 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.

This would clearly fail DSFG6.

> (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).

This would be very inconvenient in certain situations, so it 
might be considered by some people as a restriction on certain 
fields of endeavor.

In how far it makes sense at all to require the distribution of 
the source code of music or of an audio recording is another 

> > [If the DFSG actively demanded the rights of redistribution,
> > broadcasting, and so on,]
> > the GPL and the BSD would not qualify as "free" if applied
> > on non-program-works.
> How do you reach that conclusion?

Because the GPL and the BSD license do not grant these rights.

(This is a really big problem as people are already beginning to 
create free music, although there are not really any free 
licenses around. Some of them even just write "Copyleft (inv.C) 
200x <Author>". See for example, http://www.thebond.org . So, 
what should I tell them? The only thing I can do is to collect 
music under the EFF OAL and the Green Linuxtag OML, in the hope 
that in a year or two when somebody has written a really free 
license, I can still contact most of the authors and ask them to 
relicense their works.)

> 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.

As I read the Authors Rights Law (-- but IANAL --), the only 
things forbidden by default, that can be done with computer 
programs are copying, distribution, and modification. 

If I am allowed to modify a program, and I use it as part of a 
painting, I guess it will still stay a computer program included 
in a painting, but not become a painting. So I would not need 
permission from the author of the program in order to, say 
publically display a slide of the painting, using a projector.

A better example would be: Could I use the KDE sound effects in a 
KDE theme song and then radio-broadcast it? I guess I could not, 
as I do not have permission to broadcast the KDE sound effects.

"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."

Reply to: