7 Apr
2006
7 Apr
'06
5:53 a.m.
Esben Stien escribe:
Folderol <folderol(a)ukfsn.org> writes:
I think it's important for anybody that considers himself an "artist"
to somewhat control what others make to their "art". I use to share my
photos as Attribution but if I consider any of them perfect enough I
will for sure share it as also NoDerivs or Sampling. I think this is
what makes CC great, such freedom.
We shall not forget that anything not explicitly copylefted is
copyrighted. In Spain, if I make music not under CC, SGAE will try to
make money from every time it sounds and sure I won't see an euro as I
am not affiliated.
It seems to me the GPL is wholly inappropriate.
GPL is designed for functional works, but I also see music and music
creation as functional, not just as expressive artistic works.
What is wrong with the Creative Commons 2.5
Licence?
It's not exactly clear what a CC license is. Saying just Creative
Commons is not enough. It might be non commercial and it might be non
derivative.
When you use the GPL for your music, you have to provide every element
of the work available. This is not the case with any of the CC
licenses, and therefor, not sufficient for how I want to interact with
music that I like.
Truly free music lets me play with music not possible in any other
way.
Of course even given I'm a CC advocate I would never try stopping you
from sharing your contents as GPL!
Cordially, Ismael
--
Any med for your girl to be happy!
http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ivalladt/