Re: Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Phil Hézaine]

Le 01/01/2011 22:45, Michael Ellis a écrit :
> Hi Phil,
> Thanks for the input.  I've sent email to Margaret (whom I don't know
> personally)  asking her thoughts about the licensing.  I've not yet heard
> back from her.
> 
> I confess I went with a strong non-commercial clause largely in deference to
> her work and the claims on her website.  It's a lot easier to loosen a
> license later than to tighten it after the work is "in the wild".   I have
> to say that the whole copyright issue here is quite confusing.  As you point
> out, the author of the works is long dead and published editions exist that
> were never under copyright or have lapsed into the public domain.
> 
> I'm certainly not trying to assert any copyright to Bach's work or
> Margaret's for that matter.  I do claim some right to the LilyPond files
> themselves, or perhaps better to say, the organization of the files to
> produce the solfege, etc, but I'm not sure how to properly express that or,
> to be truthful, whether it's even worth the bother.  I suspect you may have
> more experience than I in these areas.
> 

Hi Michael,

Personnally, because your work is based on scripts, i'll put a GPL'ed
license. But I haven't to give you a piece of advice. Even I don't know
if you can mix the CC-NC-SA with GPL both in a work

> I really want to find out how Margaret feels about this before changing the
> license.  My primary intent here is to provide a useful resource for
> students of music and I don't want to get into a copyright dispute with
> anyone.  As the Chinese proverb says "In death avoid hell, in life avoid the
> law courts!"
> 

We have exactly the same intent. I'll say: for students of music,
artists or musicologists

> I have not encountered the Free Art license before.  From a quick glance at
> the wikipedia description, it sounds almost identical to the Creative
> Commons license with only the Attribution and ShareAlike clauses but without
> the Non-commercial clause.  Is that correct?
> 

Yes. And there is a recommandation from the FSF to use this license for
artistic purposes. Just a recommandation. Not more.

> Finally, however the copyright on my work sorts itself out, I'll be happy to
> include your work on my site under whatever copyright terms you like.
> Still, since we're working on the same chorales it would be great if we can
> find a way to combine our efforts to produce the best possible editions.
> 

I agree. Bach and a free license are just my condition for this kind of
work.

> Cheers,
> Mike
Cheers.
Phil.