tim hall wrote: >On Thursday 18 August 2005 16:15, Brad Fuller wrote: > > >>>Until we make a decision not to accept non-CC submissions to the list you >>>should assume that a piece is copyright the author and all rights reserved >>>unless explicitly licensed otherwise. >>> >>> >>> >>I would change to: "... unless explicitly licensed and stated otherwise." >> >>This is fair, unambiguous and similar in concept to the US copyright - >>you write a tune, you automatically own the copyright, you're not >>required to file for ownership. I think it should always be the case. >> >>(i guess we could also talk about the mechanical and publishing rights >>as well. But, it seems that it would follow the same policy.) >> >> > >Agreed. > >I don't actually think it's necessary to make policy on this issue, just >encourage people to state the licensing position clearly and continue to >encourage the use of free licensing. Making things mandatory can be >counter-productive in the pursuit of freedom. > > I agree with that. I think people should assume that all forms of copyrights and all rights are held by the composer unless otherwise stated. I certainly don't want people to assume that just because the music is made with FOSS they can do anything they please with the posted assets. brad
