On 29/10/11 11:32, thor wrote:
>
> One issue would be if the TPL license would be compatible with GPL (for
> instance)?
It wouldn't, and it breaks both the FSD and the DFSG.
It doesn't allow you to use the original work, and places a requirement
on you to modify the work sufficiently in order to create and use a
derivative.
So the licence is non-free from a Free Software point of view.
(Which isn't to say it isn't conceptually interesting.)
> 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.
> It seems to me to be pretty straight forward to create your own license
> for the works that you create.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation#Vanity_licenses
:-)
> 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).
You could make using the software conditional on CC licencing any
output, but that's a bit coercive and would be non-free.
[IANAL, TINLA.]
- Rob.
Received on Sat Oct 29 2011 - 11:31:30 BST