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

Re: MIDI file dual-licensed (GPL + Creative Commons) ok?



On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:03:19 +0200 Uwe Hermann wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Crimson Fields includes a *.mid file which has the following license:
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- License for the soundtrack
> 
> Quite simply, you have two choices. The music, as distributed with
> Crimson Fields, is covered under the GNU General Public License, same
> version(s) as the game itself.

That is enough for the soundtrack to comply with the DFSG.
Fine!  :)

> If you choose to separate the music
> from the game without using it in other software, the GNU General
> Public License is likely not to provide the level of protection the
> music requires. This is because the GPL was written for software,
> specifically, and there are other, better licenses to choose for
> content such as music. Therefore, if you separate the music from the
> software, you may also choose the Creative Commons license described
> below. It is recommended that you do so, because otherwise you may
> find yourself with the GPL unenforceable on the music, and you will
> have no license for the music otherwise.

I strongly dislike all this FUD about the GNU GPL.
The author of this permission notice should really *read* licenses
before spreading misconceptions about them...
The very text of the GNU GPL v2 (section 0.) defines the term "Program"
(please note the capital letter) as:

| any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this
| General Public License

I don't see how the GPL could be considered "unenforceable on the music"
(whatever that may mean)...

> 
> Copyright Notice
> 
> 	default.mid - Default Symphony
>    		(c) 2004 by Dave Fancella, david.fancella@seul.org
> 
> The Creative Commons License chosen guarantees all the same rights of
> the GPL with the exception of a requirement of attribution.

This is definitely false.

> 
> Creative Commons License
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
> 
> Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0
[...]
> This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> I _think_ that should be ok, just wanted to make sure.

I think it's OK (even though upstream seems to be misled by Creative
Commons propaganda or something...).


-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpisCDnMPsUT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: