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

Re: Freepats

On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:43:10AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
>     Ryan> Anyway, it seemed to me that the Creative Commons licenses
>     Ryan> would be more appropriate since they were specifically
>     Ryan> designed to cover media:
>     Ryan> This one is just a MIT-ish license:
>     Ryan> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/
>     Ryan> This one is a LGPL-like license without going into details
>     Ryan> of linking.  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
> As far as I can tell, with a quick glance at the summary, both of
> these licenses should be OK as far as Debian is concerned.
> I assume that the "Share Alike" clause wouldn't affect music created
> with these files, as that seems to be the desired outcome.

I think it might cover rendered output files since they contain the same
waveform data as the patches.  This would be a problem for commercial
use.  They could sell the original file but not prevent users from
copying what they have sold them.  So perhaps the non-share-alike
license is best for the base patch set, and we can allow contributors to
submit patches under share-alike license which are distributed
separately from the main patches.

Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: