Personally, I find the Creative Commons licences flexible, but far too wordy. They are more like a contract, a EULA, or the GNU GPL than existing music licences. Almost no-one reads the GPL end to end - that's why so many people don't understand it. Look at any CD package; the licences tend to be about one paragraph long, and could be edited down to just one word - DON'T. A really good free music licence would be just as succinct. If you want to allow derivative versions, have a look at the bLiP licence. Second item down on: http://www.justablip.co.uk/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=4 Cheers Daniel

Tuesday 05 August 2003 11:10 skrev Robert Jonsson: Responding to myself :) I went to their website and it was infact available, very cool. Turns out it was a songbook though, not a record. Quote from Linux Journal: " Copywright, Guthrie Style When Woody Guthrie was singing hillbilly songs on a little Los Angeles radio station in the late 1930s, he used to mail out a small mimeographed songbook to listeners who wanted the words to his songs. On the bottom of one page appeared the following: ``This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.'' --Pete Seeger, June 1967 " /Robert

It probably helped that Seeger was working in a folk tradition where adapting other people's songs was the norm. I don't know if he'd have felt so happy about bootleg copies of his vinyl releases... I guess for folk music, the song book is the source code and the performance is the binary. Cheers Daniel