[linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio

[Rob]

On Wednesday 29 October 2003 04:42, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> I mean, programmers like Paul Davis put months and years of
> work into free software, too, without holding back the right
> to commercial use. Commercial use only has to follow "the
> rules" like: no copy-protection, no rights' stealing, etc. And
> Paul surely wants to eat, too. Why should artists get to keep
> more rights for themselves than the programmers?

It's not so much "more rights" as "different rights".  In the 
software arena you have source code you can hold back or give 
out, and the GPL requires that you give it out.  This is because 
there are two ways to "use" software.... you can run it (the 
typical definition of "use") or you can incorporate some of its 
code into your own program.  

While this certainly happens in music, whether by sampling in the 
case of electronic forms or by quoting melodies and chord 
progressions in more traditional forms, there's not quite the 
same synergy to this kind of "source code sharing" as there is 
in programming.  I haven't seen a free music license yet that 
requires you to make your original unprocessed multitrack 
recordings and/or sheet music available if you use music under 
the license in your own project, for example.

So we look at the effects of the GPL and try to come up with 
something analogous for music.  The GPL is basically written so 
that the code can spread far and wide without being co-opted and 
ultimately controlled by some big corporation with an agenda.  
In the music biz, that big corporation is analagous to the 
RIAA-associated record companies, or perhaps the people that use 
music in commercials, movie soundtracks, etc.  I think the 
definition varies for each artist.

The best I've been able to come up with for my own experiments so 
far is "verbatim electronic distribution via the internet 
permitted, all other rights reserved, contact me if you're 
interested".  Maybe there's some existing free music license 
that's this way (kind of like the dual GPL/commercial license 
used by Qt and some other projects.)  But even more than 
programmers, musicians have different goals with their music.  I 
don't think you'll ever see one particular free music license 
become ascendant for that reason, and I don't know what a good 
catch-all license would entail.  But I understand the intent of 
the "no commercial use" licenses.  They wouldn't qualify as 
FSF-approved free software licenses, but then, they're not 
covering software.

Rob