Responses embedded. Thanks!
-Darren
On Friday, January 3, 2003, at 04:07 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Allowing selling or disallowing it makes a fundamental
difference. If
I for
example write an open source game that uses loops from the OMRL in its
soundtrack, it could not be part of a distribution like Debian, that
many
companies sell on CD.
If I construct a Pd patch to comfortably play those loops, it could
not be
part of the AGNULA distribution, if it includes the loops, because
someday
AGNULA CD's will get sold.
I don't think that's necessarily true. You can still write and
distribute a PD patch that uses the loops. You just couldn't include
the loops themselves. But your point is made, nonetheless.
Also, the use of the loops in a game falls under the "final product"
use of the license, and would not be affected by the redistribution
restriction.
These are just two simple examples as to what problems
the restriction
of
selling could lead. I can think of many more. In the end, with this
license
OMRL would be just another sampling library, that restricts
distribution.
What about encouraging selling and encouraging distribution? The
license
could have the viral GNU catch, that copying and reselling of a CD's
contents shall not be restricted by a third party producer. This way,
some
enterprise could make and sell CDs with OMRL, but I and anyone would be
allowed to copy those for friends and enemies, if one feels the urge
to do
so.
This is an interesting idea. Any other thoughts?
Regards,
Darren Landrum