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

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

"Francesco Poli" <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote in message 20060513171742.6aa6887a.frx@firenze.linux.it">news:20060513171742.6aa6887a.frx@firenze.linux.it...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 15:03:19 +0200 Uwe Hermann wrote:
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)...

Indeed music should be fine under the GPL, or at least is no worse off than when under a CC licence. Of course US copyright law as it relates to music is highly perverse, because the law was writen by the RIAA in conjuction with the record labels (ASCAP [read: ass-cap]).

Remember that there are a whole crudload of copyrights
on any given released song. There is Copyright on music (composer), on the lyrics (lyricist), on the performance (artist), and on the recording (Publisher [strictly whoever actually ran the recording machine]). The publisher usually has production rights, which are distict ftom the rights on a particular recording. Do note the seperate copyrights of the artist and publisher, which are often lumped together. [This is similar to how I hold copyright on a speech I give, even one that is completely impromptu, but the stenographer who trasncibes the speech has copyright on that particular transcription. Of course the transcription is a derivitive work, and would require licence from me, but there is still actual copyright on the transcription.]

Then there are the special rights for the publishers, the compulsory licence, etc.

Existing precident is presumably based mostly on "traditional" publishing,
and I would not be too surprised if it conflicts with free-software style licencing were present, but certainly the CC licence would be no better off in this regard than the GPL.

I think it's OK (even though upstream seems to be misled by Creative
Commons propaganda or something...).
If one were to quickly read the CC Licences it would be easy to miss the problems
that cause GPL-incompatability and/or DFSG-nonfreeness.

Reply to: