..and even if they did specify that they were releasing it under a 'Creative Commons' License, would it not be even better if they specified _which_ 'Creative Commons' License - e.g.: CC Sharing License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed-music CC Attribution-Sharealike License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ or the CC Attribution License - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ or a different free license altogether, such as the: Free Art License - http://artlibre.org/licence/lalgb.html Some people might not even want their music listened to by anyone except those on the mailing list. I just think it would be useful to make it specific, so that - in case people want to set up an icecast server for example - they wouldn't be offending the original author/composer. Perhaps even an informal comment on how they would like the music to be re-distributed or used (..or not, as the case may be) would suffice. --- Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:12:39 +0100 > studio-64 <fsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Maybe just mention if it isn't. > > It could be assumed that music posted to this > public list is creative > > commons. > > No, the only thing that might be assumed if no > further license notice is > attached to a music posting is that the creator > allows you to download > and listen to the music. Not much else. Noone ever > signed a "Everything > i post to this list will be licensed under creative > commens" agreement > when signing up to the list. > > Flo > > -- > Palimm Palimm! > http://tapas.affenbande.org > -- http://hl.afraid.org/~david/ -- David Collins ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
