On 29 October 2011 12:32, thor <th.list_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think this is a great idea Kassen,
>
Thanks.
> and Adrian's concrete suggestion is cool.
>
>
Yes! I like it too.
> One issue would be if the TPL license would be compatible with GPL (for
> instance)?
>
>
Hmmm, I don't think so. And I also suspect that the current idea as it
stands currently wouldn't even be called "free" by RMS, after all it does
limit the freedom of people, particularly to run the software publicly in a
passive way. I see this more or less along the lines of how chess limits our
freedom, once I agree to play chess with you I lose the freedom to -say-
introduce a golfball on the board rolling towards your pieces.
That might be a issue if we'd like to keep the /examples/ directories of
various livecoding environment in Debian-based distributions, to be honest I
hadn't thought of that yet.
> 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.
>
>
Yes, you wouldn't. But the examples of using ixi lang might be TPL,
particularly mailing lists posts on how to accomplish a certain thing in ixi
might.
> It seems to me to be pretty straight forward to create your own license for
> the works
> that you create. We need a generative music license for example. The CC
> licenses
> don't really work for works that vary.
>
No, exactly, that's what originally got me started thinking. I think there
are concrete situations already that the CC doesn't cover. If I compose a
song that I'd like to sell online or on a record I'd like to retain my
rights. However, I might also like to permit and even encourage remixes
(some artists cleverly use that as a promotional device) so there you have a
need for a sort of "CC -derivatives only" licence, as opposed to the
existing "CC -no derivatives" one.
To me that seems comparable to the situation of a question on a mailinglist;
I'm usually very happy to get people "un-stuck" and send some code to
demonstrate a principle as a starting-point. I'm less happy to do other
people's homework for them. A licence like this would distinguish between
"giving A to X" and "X making A his/her own". In that context -for our post
to be useful- we need to wave most of our rights while setting a condition
or two. Typically that's clear informally anyway but compared to the CC it's
a interesting situation.
> This summer I hear Aymeric Mansoux give this paper:
> http://su.kuri.mu/00000001/2011----MY.LAWYER.IS.AN.ARTIST/
>
> well worth reading.
>
>
I just did. I'm happy she too refers to some of this as "playing a game";
That's exactly what I'm after.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Sat Oct 29 2011 - 11:33:06 BST