[PD] [ANN] "Symmetries" premiere recording now available (and other goodies)

Marc Lavallée marc at hacklava.net
Mon May 2 05:00:11 CEST 2005


Le 1 Mai 2005 13:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
> There is nothing wrong with distributing media, or anything for that
> matter, under the GNU GPL.  If it has the terms that you desire, then
> you should use it.  

The GPL was designed to distribute software, not content. There's nothing 
wrong to use the GPL for content, but it's not an easy fit, because it is 
not universal; it refers to software, code, libraries, linking and 
binaries...

The FreePats project is distributing a huge collection of samplings for 
Timidity (called "patches", which are like soundfonts), but with a 
*modified* GPL license explaining that music created using these samplings 
can't be considered like derivative works. This clause is useless, because 
this is already the case with any GPL software; contents created using a 
GPL software have no obligation to use the GPL 
(http://alsa.opensrc.org/index.php?page=FreePats). It's only an example to 
show that using the GPL for something else than software can cause some 
confusion.

> It is much better than almost all of the CC 
> licenses for something like a soundfont, I believe.

Is it because you consider that a soundfont is like a software?

> For example, if you include the Attribution clause, then if someone
> wanted to include CC soundfonts in their app, they would have to
> attribute every one of the soundfont authors whenever that app is
> mentioned.  

Of course, it would be ridiculous for a musical work to detail credits of 
each soundfont used to create it. Listing the soundfonts should be more 
than enough, if not optional. A soundfont based on some other soundfonts is 
a derivative work, but a musical piece using a soundfont is not a 
derivative work.  Imagine if a symphonic orchestra had to list all people 
involved in the evolution of all instruments used in the orchestra, each 
time a new musical work is performed... 

We need to clearly define what a soundfont is before choosing a license. Is 
it like an instrument? Or is it like a collection of samplings, in a format 
that allows instant use? Is it any different from a cd full of samplings 
intended to recreate or simulate an instrument tessiture on a hardware 
sampler? 

> Then if a Linux distro wanted to distribute those soundfonts, they would 
> also have to mention each author every time that distro is mentioned.  
> Then we are back to the old BSD license problem. 
> The UC Berkeley ditched the attribution clause for this very reason.

I understand the similarity between the old BSD licence and the CC licenses 
with the Attribution clause; it was added to the 2.0 version of the CC 
license collection. So maybe using a 1.0 CC license would solve this 
problem. It is important to note that there's a bunch of different licenses 
under the CC umbrella, and even the GPL is part of it.

> CC licenses are good for final products (pieces of music, movies,
> etc.), but attribution clauses can cause big problems with tools.  The
> CC sampling licenses would be even worse in this regard.  

It's true that the CC sampling license would be inappropriate for a 
soundfont. All 1.0 licenses looks ok.  A soundfont could be distributed 
with an appropriate CC license from a package repository not hosted at 
Debian.org... I wonder if it would be possible to distribute a Knoppix 
livecd with such soundfonts. 

> Neither could be included in Debian.

People often use the GPL for anything, not because they understand it, but 
because it just works, and to avoid problems with the Debian community. The 
CC is a legal framework, which is much easier to understand than the GPL 
and the DFSG. It offers many options, so people can choose their poison.

We better get used to the CC scheme, because we'll have to deal with it, 
like the Debian people do, working with the CC to fix incompatibilities. I 
understand why they recommend not to use CC licenses until these 
incompatibilities are resolved, but not everybody are concerned about the 
Debian effort. The CC licenses are worth it, despite Debian...

According to this message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00406.html
"The Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike licenses, however, seem
to be intended to make works Free in a way compatible with the DFSG."
So there's hope.

--
Marc




More information about the Pd-list mailing list