23 Dec
2002
23 Dec
'02
10:58 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:34:55 +0000, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:
On Monday 23 December 2002 1:44 pm, Steve Harris
wrote:
Right, so to avoid licence hell I think its neccesary to limit to one
licence. Views aren't entrenched enough yet to make this really
contraversial.
As long as the licence is not too wierd and does what people want you will
get people to use it.
I dont want to have to read a huge, complex licence every time I want to
download a sample. If you allow a variety of licences you will get it ;)
- Steve
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 11:50:00 -0800, Paul
Winkler wrote:
Careful, you might start a license war :)
Seriously, there are many different conditions people might want to put on
the use of their samples: Should they be free for use for any purpose, or
restricted for use in commercial projects? Can they be used without
crediting their creator? Can they be re-distributed in a modified form? As
part of a song? Should the liecense be copyleft? I'm sure there are more. o) license (public domain? bsd-ish? dsl? etc)
I think it would make sense to limit the archive to one license, it makes
things much less complex.