[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[derek holzer]

Hi HC,

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> With the GNU GPL, its 
> dead simple: do whatever you want with it as long as you distribute any 
> changes or additions also.  That's why I have been thinking about 
> releasing everything I do, music, sound installations, whatever, under 
> the GNU GPL.

What becomes problematic here is the use of a license designed for 
software applied to non-software things, like pieces of music, 
installations, videos, etc. There is plenty of precedent for the GNU GPL 
to protect software. But it is based around the idea of a "source code", 
which is an easily definable thing in software and a nebulous gray zone 
in art. What is the "source code" of your music? Is it a score? Is it 
the PD patch? Is it the MIDI tracker file? Is it all the samples you 
used? None of this is defined precisely by the GNU GPL, so it would make 
applying it to your art quite difficult. Not to mention the other 
code-specific terminology in the license that would be difficult to fix 
legally to non-software products. I saw the Design Science License as an 
attempt to deal with this problem, but it still wasn't too specific 
about what "source code" should be. And, AFAIK, the FSF has distanced 
themselves from the DSL anyway, which means they won't fight to protect 
your work under it. I'd also like to see something from the FSF that 
says they will act legally to protect non-software work under the GNU 
GPL. It seems like it would be outside their jurisdiction.

best,
d.

-- 
derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl
---Oblique Strategy # 21:
"Be less critical"