I think this is a great idea Kassen, and Adrian's concrete suggestion is cool.
One issue would be if the TPL license would be compatible with GPL (for instance)?
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.
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.
This summer I hear Aymeric Mansoux give this paper:
http://su.kuri.mu/00000001/2011----MY.LAWYER.IS.AN.ARTIST/
well worth reading.
Thor
On 29 Oct 2011, at 00:24, Adrian Ward wrote:
>
> I like it. The TPL: Toplap Permanence License.
>
>
> This program is livecoded software: in order to use it, you must modify
> it under the terms of the Toplap Permanence License immediately before, or at the same time as executing it.
>
>
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2011, at 18:02, Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I have a little thought experiment; there are many licences in the software world, mostly dealing with under what conditions you can re-distribute, use and modify code. This is a good thing, I feel, at least within the current copyright system. What I'm not sure we have yet is a licence that allows public usage of code *only* under the condition that it is modified, or perhaps that the usage itself modifies it. For example there are versions of the Creative Commons that permit modification, but I can't find any that require it.
>>
>> Trying something like that as a licence for livecoding examples might be a fun experiment; the purpose of those will be quite different from the kind of assumed purpose of GPL-ed code, for example.
>>
>> Not sure this makes any sense, or whether it is of any interest to anyone. Ignore if this is a crap idea ;-).
>>
>> Yours,
>> Kas.
Received on Sat Oct 29 2011 - 10:28:59 BST