[PD-ot] Art: To GPL or not to GPL?

[RTaylor]

The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
>
>I think an example would more clearly explain what I am talking about.   
>Say I write some software that is central to a performance and the  
>performers have a commodity skill.  So if I release this project under  
>the GPL, someone could download the software, hire some people, and  
>perform the piece and call it their art, leaving all the Copyright  
>notices intact on the code, just not telling anyone about it.  This  
>wouldn't violate the GPL since they would be claiming credit for the  
>performance, not the software.

 To some extent it would be their art. Just like the Boston Symphony
Orchestra's art is their art. I'm not one of those folk that sees things as
being "all in the interpretation" but I do see it as having much validity on its
own. {Depending on just how much folk do put into it}

 Why wouldn't they just call it a performance, acknowledge that it was
written by you and make arrangements to pay you whatever fees and
royalties are due you? That is a standard operating procedure, no?

 Seeing as you're talking a bit of software though... folk don't generally
acknowledge the maker of their saxophones... I suppose it would depend
on the role it played in the performance.

>But I want people to build upon my idea just as I have built upon the  
>ideas of so many others, that is why I insist on releasing everything I  
>write as free software.  But I would like to get paid for my work so I  
>don't have to do other bullshit jobs.  The main funding stream that I  
>see for code/media art is getting paid to show your art at festivals.   
>I am currently finishing a stint at the Lille 2004 European Cultural  
>Capital festival and the level of sleaze and backstabbing is pretty  
>appalling.  This is what triggered this question: I could totally see  
>someone in a festival like this not wanting to pay to put on a piece,  
>so once they find out its GPL'ed, they just do it themselves, without  
>giving me even credit (while leaving the GPL copyright notices intact  
>with my name on them).

 Is the value of this in the code itself or in the ideas conveyed? If the
software's simply a saxophone-like tool... I'd not worry about it... I'd
probably just go with the gpl by itself... If the software makes the 
statement... I think you may have a sticky wicket to ummm... "wicket"
with {If you're going to GPL it {Tho' I've always had the impression that
was covered by the GPL anyway. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html }}.
Why don't you just append whatever license with the stipulation that... in
order to use the software as a basis for further software folk need to
give you credit?

It does give you something legal...

>The other side of the question is the troubles that the BSD attribution  
>clause caused.  Basically, as the software spreads the number of  
>attributions needed becomes large and unmanagable.  So I think the  
>comprimise would be to cover the instrument parts of the code under the  
>GPL, so people will develop it and make it better, while putting the  
>score and other performance aspects of it under the Creative Commons  
>Attribution Share-Alike license, then just hope that people will  
>actually want to pay me rather than just give me credit :).

 Maybe you should just offer it for sale.
You might specify that in your license as well.

 {"This product is for sale. ...$39.00 a box."}

-- 
Could you be the one they talk about?
Hiding inside, behind another door?
Is it only happiness you want?
Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}