Esben Stien escribe: > Folderol <folderol@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > It seems to me the GPL is wholly inappropriate. > > GPL is designed for functional works, but I also see music and music > creation as functional, not just as expressive artistic works. > > > What is wrong with the Creative Commons 2.5 Licence? > > It's not exactly clear what a CC license is. Saying just Creative > Commons is not enough. It might be non commercial and it might be non > derivative. > > When you use the GPL for your music, you have to provide every element > of the work available. This is not the case with any of the CC > licenses, and therefor, not sufficient for how I want to interact with > music that I like. I think it's important for anybody that considers himself an "artist" to somewhat control what others make to their "art". I use to share my photos as Attribution but if I consider any of them perfect enough I will for sure share it as also NoDerivs or Sampling. I think this is what makes CC great, such freedom. We shall not forget that anything not explicitly copylefted is copyrighted. In Spain, if I make music not under CC, SGAE will try to make money from every time it sounds and sure I won't see an euro as I am not affiliated. > > Truly free music lets me play with music not possible in any other > way. > Of course even given I'm a CC advocate I would never try stopping you from sharing your contents as GPL! Cordially, Ismael -- Any med for your girl to be happy! http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ivalladt/
