Re: GNU FDL License on Mutopia

[David Chan]

Bernd Warken wrote:
> Next, the MutopiaBSD license looks quite good, but is it fool-proof
> against theft or malicious attacks?  I do not know, but chances are
> that the GNU copyleft people have more experience and their FDL has
> superior security aspects.

I take your point, MutopiaBSD is not a copyleft license.  But different
types of material require different freedoms; for instance, Richard
Stallman has commented that the right to modify a novel might not be
important.  It has proved hard to find an existing license which
guarantees the freedoms we want for music and also provides copyleft
protection; I'm not sure the FDL guarantees the freedoms for music.

I completely agree that copyleft would be good if possible, but if the
choice was between a license which was over-restrictive and one which
was under-restrictive, I would choose the under-restrictive license.
But I do appreciate the issue you raise; I don't regard BSD as a
perfect solution.

Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> The fear was, as I'm sure you understand, that the FDL would fit
> mutopia content just about as bad as the GPL.  For people that are not
> familar with the GPL, the MutopiaBSD is easier to digest.  Maybe we
> should ask if the FSF, in casu rms, could advise on this.

Bernd Warken wrote: 
> For music of composers that died more than 70 years ago, performance
> is free, being guaranteed by international laws.  So it is not
> necessary to specify performance aspects for old music in the license.

That is interesting; I don't think I've heard anything like that before.
The issue would be if a Mutopia typist tried to subsequently claim that
a performance contained some of the creativity of his/her typesetting.
Maybe we should ask if the FSF lawyer could comment.

-- 
David