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