Re: OSL vs Creative Commons

[Dave Fancella <david.fancella@comcast.net>]

On Saturday 13 March 2004 05:32 pm, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> On 13.03.2004 07:20, Dave Fancella wrote:
> > So, here's what I want for the music I make:
> >
> > 1.  Anybody can copy it for anybody else
> > 2.  They always give me credit for making it (for better or for worse, if
> > it's that bad I wouldn't release it anyway, heh)
> > 3.  If someone uses it to make money, they give me credit
> > 4.  If someone uses it to make another piece of music (derivative work),
> > they give me credit, and they use the same license for the music they
> > made that uses mine (the share-alike part of the GPL and the Creative
> > Commons) 5.  Nobody gets sued for listening to it, copying it, or making
> > it better.  If they make it worse I'll just shoot 'em, so that's not a
> > problem either.  ;)
> >
> > So, from my point of view I'm not swayed to pick one over the other,
> > since it looks like it would be the same as picking sides in the Free
> > Software vs. Open Source blood feud, and I'm not picking sides in that. 
> > So you guys will have to decide which you prefer for the soundtrack, and
> > I'll go with that. It's not that big of a deal to me.  ;)
>
> Considering all this is there a reason we can't just pick GPL for
> everything and leave it at that? There are lots of projects out there
> (including Crimson Fields, up to now) which also put the content under GPL
> and I can't see any obvious reason why they shouldn't. Is there?

Mm.  I came up with a solution.  The music is technically part of the 
software, right?  So GPL should work for it for that reason.  So we say "The 
software is GPL, but if you'd like to distribute the music separate from the 
software, it's Creative Commons *blah blah here's the link to the CC license 
and stuff*".  That way, the music is GPL when it's with the software, which 
is fine.  No possible license incompatibilities with the GPL that Crimson is 
released under.  The only issue is when/if someone wants to pass around the 
music separate from the software, in which case it gets a different license 
that is theoretically stronger for the music than the GPL.  And also if 
someone wants to use the music for something different, such as a recorded CD 
or something, they can, but it falls under CC at that point.  So it's just 
one of those dual licensing things where if the music a component of the 
software, it's GPL, but if it's separated from the software, it's CC.

How's that?

Dave

-- 
Visit my website!
http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em

Hors d'oeuvres -- a ham sandwich cut into forty pieces.
		-- Jack Benny