Rob;
So the licence is non-free from a Free Software point of view.
>
> (Which isn't to say it isn't conceptually interesting.)
>
>
Guilty as charged. Yes, maybe this is like Alice telling her son Bob to
learn how to swim. That's intended to increase Bob's freedom (for example
the freedom to play by the water-side) but at the moment Bob might be
feeling quite restricted.
> > So if I licence ixi lang with a TPL licence, but it's written in
> > SuperCollider which is GPL, I might have created a great mess.
>
> SC scripts can be arbitrarily licenced IIRC so this wouldn't be a problem.
>
>
That's true. Particularly GCC/G++ has been used to create clearly non-free
works. That's a intentional option I think XCode includes it.
> > We need a generative music license for example. The CC
> > licenses don't really work for works that vary.
>
> This is a difficult one. If the work is an adaptation/derivative of
> another work, the CC licences are fine. If the work is new/unique, it's
> considered bad to force a licence on people (think of iPhone and online
> apps that claim copyright on compositions you make with them).
>
>
Yes, that's terrible and not what I'm after; I hope that's clear.
> You could make using the software conditional on CC licencing any
> output, but that's a bit coercive and would be non-free.
>
>
That's also no good. That would cover things like the output of code
generating music, it doesn't cover the demand/encouragement to edit that
code to get new types of output.
But yes, you are right, there are problems here.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Sat Oct 29 2011 - 11:55:35 BST