we used this for the Madonna remix project CD but were forced to dual license with regular copyright so we could get around the MCPS (our equivalent of ASCAP). thats a sting in the tail to watch out for, but the EFF / Creative Commons and i are going to do some lobbying which should hopefuly make things easier at least in the UK. m~ John Bleichert wrote: > Greetings (took me a while to catch up). What does everybody think of the > Open Audio License? > > http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php > > It won't really have any teeth until it survives litigation once, but... > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote: > >>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:43:59 +0100 >>Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio >> >>Hallo, >>Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: >> >> >>>>The non-commercial CC >>>>license makes it a gift with a catch, or actually it makes it not a >>>>gift at all in some sense. >>> >>>I disagree. We don't usually offer a gift to someone and expect the >>>recipient to sell it. That's not a catch, that's just an expectation >>>of civilised behaviour. >> >>Maybe, but we also wouldn't disallow anyone to sell a gift. There are >>many reasons why someone would sell a gift, for example because some >>money is needed and everything else's already sold. >> >> >>>>"non-commercial use or >>>>distribution only" means non-free >>> >>>I'm not sure the 'freedom' to make a living from someone else's work >>>without contributing back is something that licences should >>>encourage. >> >>True, and this is the catch of the "share alike" in creative commons >>or open sourc/free software licenses: You can sell, but you must not >>take away rights when selling. >> >> >>>I'm not talking about remixers or samplers here - people >>>who take the work and add something to it. I'm talking about the >>>people who would sell the work as it is without adding any value, and >>>keep the money for themselves. >> >>Just some more food for thought: >> >>CC is discussing a sampling license currently, see >>http://creativecommons.org/projects/cc-sampling. This is of course an >>interesting concept, but I keep asking myself, what other licenses the >>lawyers will come up with, when future, yet unknown "common" uses will >>pop up. Today it's sampling, that gets a special treatment, yesterday >>it was filesharing, tomorrow it might be "public place sound >>designing" or whatever. All these use cases might require special >>exceptions to allow them without charge for some people. Compare that >>to the simplicity of a real free license. You wouldn't need a >>"sampling license" if you would be allowed to "sample" the whole tune >>for whatever purpose in the first place. >> >>But I'm getting utopian now, I know. It's an old grassroot anarchist >>heritage coming up again... >> >>ciao >>-- >> Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__ >> > > > // John Bleichert > // syborg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- |\ _,,,---,,_ ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." -- Bruce Graham Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers! Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/ .::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.
