19 Aug
2005
19 Aug
'05
5:35 p.m.
On Friday 19 August 2005 19:50, Shayne O'Connor wrote:
tim hall wrote:
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
On Friday 19 August 2005 18:36, Shayne
O'Connor wrote:
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 !!! 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.