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

[RTaylor]

The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,

>>  You're thinking just the ©?
>
>For a more complete explanation of what I mean, check out the old BSD  
>license with the attribution clause.  If I released a score to a piece  
>of music under the GPL, then anyone could perform it without giving  
>credit in the program, advertising, etc.  An attribution clause, says  
>that whenever the piece of work in question is mentioned, or anything  
>that uses it, attribution must be giving in ads, published materials,  
>etc.  This is very different than just leaving the copyright intact  
>with the name on it.

 In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers"
or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".

 Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open
source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more
likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else
would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of
respect... not because of some clause in a contract...

 I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the
authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway.  Why don't you wait
until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?

 I mean... Take a look at the posters here...

http://www.ricksmovie.com/

-- 
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}