7 Aug
2005
7 Aug
'05
10:07 a.m.
..and even if they did specify that they were
releasing it under a 'Creative Commons' License, would
it not be even better if they specified _which_
'Creative Commons' License - e.g.:
CC Sharing License -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed-music
CC Attribution-Sharealike License -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
or the
CC Attribution License -
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
or a different free license altogether, such as the:
Free Art License -
http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html
Some people might not even want their music listened
to by anyone except those on the mailing list.
I just think it would be useful to make it specific,
so that - in case people want to set up an icecast
server for example - they wouldn't be offending the
original author/composer.
Perhaps even an informal comment on how they would
like the music to be re-distributed or used (..or not,
as the case may be) would suffice.
--- Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:12:39 +0100
studio-64 <fsmith(a)walescomputers.co.uk> wrote:
--
http://hl.afraid.org/~david/
--
David Collins
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Maybe just mention if it isn't.
It could be assumed that music posted to this
public list is creative
commons.
No, the only thing that might be assumed if no
further license notice is
attached to a music posting is that the creator
allows you to download
and listen to the music. Not much else. Noone ever
signed a "Everything
i post to this list will be licensed under creative
commens" agreement
when signing up to the list.
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org