[linux-audio-user] Specifying the license when posting music?

[tim hall]

On Friday 19 August 2005 19:50, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> tim hall wrote:
> > On Friday 19 August 2005 18:36, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
> >>what question? i don't understand what you mean by "free jingle" ... i'm
> >>pretty sure it would be against a non-commercial CC license for a song
> >>to be used in advertising. in any case, i can't really envision a piece
> >>of advertising or product endorsement that wouldn't be considered
> >>commercial. Free/open advertising?! That's like a contradiction of terms!
> >
> > Sorry, a non-commercial license is by definition non-free. If a piece of
> > music is licensed using one of the _free_ licenses it can be used for
> > advertising. There is nothing you can do to prevent that. I'd love to
> > hear that I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
>
> i don't think you're wrong, but that's where the Creative Commons comes
> in - it's not "free" like the GPL is free, but it's about as close as a
> license for artistic works can get (and you can allow commercial uses if
> you like, thereby making it truly "free").
>
> i'm in no way advocating that people license their music under the GPL !!!

OK, what I'm talking about here is the free CC type licenses:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php

Works licensed this way would be the closest to GPL although the attribution 
and share-alike clauses may seem restrictive to sample users. The 
non-commercial and no-derivative-works clauses are what I would describe as 
non-free. No value judgement in that. The above licenses can be commercially 
exploited i.e. free jingles - again no value judgement here. It's good to be 
clear what we're doing.

If we are going to assume CC status for works posted here, then we should 
assume the most restrictive license i.e.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
My real opinion, however, is assume nothing. ;) ever. ;)

Thanks for this discussion, it has helped me get clearer on what CC and other 
similar licenses mean. I think the majority of my work will probably go out 
as:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/
or
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Although there is some material which needs to actually go back into the 
public domain. This gets tricky when there are co-authors involved who don't 
know about CC. I will make all this clear in future releases.

By the way, nice work Mark re: http://opensrc.org/index.php?page=RadIO
-- 
cheers,

tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim