On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:41:27AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > I would suggest you use the GPL, and add a note somewhere that you > interpret the GPL as above. If anyone disagrees with your > interpretation (and so far nobody has), then the issue can be resolved > at that time. > > To do this, you could add the GPL COPYING file to the archive, and > then a COPYRIGHT file that lists the copyright holders, and the fact > the files are licensed for use under the GPL. I don't seem to be getting mail from the BTS on this bug. Anyway, it seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses would be more appropriate since they were specifically designed to cover media: This one is just a MIT-ish license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ This one is a LGPL-like license without going into details of linking. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/ If you go here, you can select a license specifically for audio works with particular desirable attributes: http://creativecommons.org/license/ -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature