MusicKit licensing

[Leigh Smith]

Thanks to a forward from Yves, I understand there has been some  
discussion on the state of the MusicKit copyright on discuss-gnustep.  
Trying not drown myself in mailling lists, I have until now withheld  
from subscribing to discuss-gnustep, I guess I've been drawn into the  
vortex :-)

On Feb 19th I sent the following email to a MusicKit user:

> > You mentioned that the library has been used for some commercial  
> > projects.  Are there any licensing gotchas (carry overs from NeXT  
> > days etc.) that I would need to be aware of if I was interested in  
> > using MusicKit in a commercial framework?
>
> The codebase distributed as the MusicKit consists of multiple  
> contributions. The SndKit, MKPerformSndMIDI and all changes to the  
> MusicKit codebase beyond V4.2 are distributed under a BSD like license  
> described at
> http://www.musickit.org/license.html. The final status of the MusicKit  
> codebase _prior_ to V4.2 is currently being resolved between Apple,  
> CCRMA and (to a lesser extent) the MusicKit project. Apple have been  
> extremely helpful on this front, digging up 12 year old agreements,  
> and responding to our feedback, but these things take time to  
> finalise. I'm hoping to have this resolved very soon.
>
> The commercial projects include Sequence which were distributed prior  
> to the MusicKit project taking over the MK maintenance. Recent  
> commercial projects that I know of have used portions of the codebase  
> which are fully under the current license and do not use NeXT code,  
> i.e the frameworks (SndKit, MKPerformSndMIDI) I mentioned above.

To this I would add that Apple is planning to convene a conference call  
this week including myself (as MusicKit project admin) and Julius O.  
Smith - one of the original people behind the MusicKit and still at  
CCRMA, in order to find a consensus. I have already put forward the  
position to Apple that it is important for independent software vendors  
to be able to use the MusicKit code in commercial projects and had  
proposed that Apple release the MusicKit under APSL 2.0. I should say  
that the nature of the discussions have to date been very positive and  
carried out with great support by Apple.

These issues are complex and at the moment I can not give a definitive  
statement as to where they stand. If developers have a short time  
schedule and want to release closed code using the MusicKit (distinct  
from the SndKit or MKPerformSndMIDI) framework, I would suggest they  
seek legal advice.

For the record, I made a point of adding Copyright NeXT statements to  
several source files that were in the original 4.2 distribution that  
had no attribution of copyright, assuming that indeed the code had  
originated from NeXT's release to CCRMA (circa 3.0 release) and stating  
copyright on all changes made to the code since that 4.2 release as by  
the MusicKit Project. That may indeed prove to have been an incorrect  
action on my part, however, these changes are in the CVS logs and can  
be deduced with a "find -exec diff" incantation if I need to correct  
spurious attributions. However in the majority of MusicKit framework  
source files, the Copyright NeXT statements did exist (in a variety of  
forms not all with the words "All Rights Reserved") and I have left  
them intact in all cases.

> > > I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't think
> > > MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.

I don't know where this information to report comes from. As far as I  
know this is Dennis Leeuw's  opinion only to state that the MusicKit  
never "can and ever will be OpenSource". There are many means for a  
suitable solution to be arrived at - we are following the first  
approach of polite discussion and consensus. I would appreciate  
receiving readers opinions as to what they require in terms of license  
to realise their goals, so that I can speak to Apple representing as  
many opinions as developers express to me. I never want to rule  
anything out, but I doubt the code would ever be released as GPL  
(distinct from LGPL), since this would restrict it's use from closed  
source commercial projects which would impact it's support (i.e I  
couldn't afford to work on it). IMHO there are too many frightening  
political situations in the real world to spend time getting political  
about music software.

> Hi
>
> As a MusikKit list reader, I think you would appreciate
> becoming a GNUStep list reader for a few minutes ;-)
>
> Début du message réexpédié :
>
> > De: discuss-gnustep-request@gnu.org
> > Date: 1 mars 2004 19:42:22 GMT-05:00
> > À: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> > Objet: Discuss-gnustep Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
> > Répondre à: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> >
> > Send Discuss-gnustep mailing list submissions to
> >         discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >         http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >         discuss-gnustep-request@gnu.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >         discuss-gnustep-owner@gnu.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Discuss-gnustep digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    2. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> >       (Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf)
> >    3. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework (Jason Clouse)
> >    4. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework (Dennis Leeuw)
> >    5. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> >       (Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf)
> >    8. Ann: Ocean db-0.1.3 (Dennis Leeuw)
> >   10. Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework (Marco Scheurer)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:16:08 +0100
> > From: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@hamburg.de>
> > Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> > To: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com>
> > Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
> > Message-ID: <58B0D3BC-6AE3-11D8-85D0-000393CBC4B6@hamburg.de>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >
> >
> > Am Sonntag, 29.02.04 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Dennis Leeuw:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As I noted before I wanted to support MusicKit as a part of Ocean.
> > >
> > > Thanks to Jeff Teunissen I have decided to skip MusicKit due to the
> > > risk of the copyrights within MusicKit. There are too many NeXT and
> > > Apple copyrights to take the risk of inclusion.
> >
> > What did Mr. Teunissen tell you? Where here
> > (http://musickit.sourceforge.net/license.html) do you read something
> > about a NeXT and Apple copyright?
> >
> > > I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't think
> > > MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
> >
> > I think to demand that all software that should be used with GNUstep
> > _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top.  
> > BTW
> > german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
> > somebody else.
> >
> > > Any one with good ideas for a Music Framework that can be used?
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Dennis Leeuw
> >
> > Lars
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 15:12:36 -0500
> > From: Jason Clouse <jhclouse@charter.net>
> > Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> > To: discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> > Message-ID: <9c467cccbc62816c5167d453cf6d4577@localhost.localdomain>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
> >
> > On 2004-02-29 14:06:47 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com> wrote:
> > > Any one with good ideas for a Music Framework that can be used?
> >
> > The MusicKit design is inspired.  If you don't want to use it, I don't
> > think you should offer a music framework at all.  Anything else would
> > be garbage in comparison.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 21:44:14 +0100
> > From: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com>
> > Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> > To: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars.sonchocky-helldorf@hamburg.de>
> > Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
> > Message-ID: <40424F1E.9020302@made-it.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> >
> > Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, 29.02.04 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Dennis Leeuw:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > As I noted before I wanted to support MusicKit as a part of Ocean.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to Jeff Teunissen I have decided to skip MusicKit due to the
> > > > risk of the copyrights within MusicKit. There are too many NeXT and
> > > > Apple copyrights to take the risk of inclusion.
> > >
> > >
> > > What did Mr. Teunissen tell you?
> >
> > He just warned me.
> >
> >   Where here
> > > (http://musickit.sourceforge.net/license.html) do you read something
> > > about a NeXT and Apple copyright?
> >
> > Nope not an that page. But just do a grep -r NeXT * in the MusicKit
> > sources or Apple for that matter.
> >
> > > > I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't  
> > > > think
> > > > MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think to demand that all software that should be used with GNUstep
> > > _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top.  
> > > BTW
> > > german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
> > > somebody else.
> >
> > Nope no need for that. But a line like:
> > (c) NeXT all rights reserved
> > Is somewhat problematic for me. I am not a lawer, I don't have the
> > knowledge to investigate what it can mean to me now, nor in the  
> > future.
> > And it is in a lot of .h files... :(
> >
> > If someone can garantee me that I won't get into trouble, that I can
> > treat it as Open Source... that I might think it over. But for now  
> > there
> > are too much things in there that I feel might me get into trouble.
> >
> > Dennis Leeuw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 11:04:40 +0100
> > From: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf
> >         <Lars.Sonchocky-Helldorf@bbdo-interone.de>
> > Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> > To: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com>
> > Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > 	<OFC78DFC14.005B3546-ONC1256E4A.0035E159-C1256E4A.00375C0E@bbdo- 
> > interone.de>
> >         
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >
> > Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com> wrote on 29.02.2004 21:44:14:
> >
> > > Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
> > > > Am Sonntag, 29.02.04 um 14:06 Uhr schrieb Dennis Leeuw:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > As I noted before I wanted to support MusicKit as a part of Ocean.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to Jeff Teunissen I have decided to skip MusicKit due to the
> > > > > risk of the copyrights within MusicKit. There are too many NeXT and
> > > > > Apple copyrights to take the risk of inclusion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What did Mr. Teunissen tell you?
> > >
> > > He just warned me.
> > >
> > >   Where here
> > > > (http://musickit.sourceforge.net/license.html) do you read something
> > > > about a NeXT and Apple copyright?
> > >
> > > Nope not an that page. But just do a grep -r NeXT * in the MusicKit
> > > sources or Apple for that matter.
> > >
> > > > > I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't  
> > > > > think
> >
> > > > > MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software kit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think to demand that all software that should be used with GNUstep
> > > > _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top.
> > BTW
> > > > german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
> > > > somebody else.
> > >
> > > Nope no need for that. But a line like:
> > > (c) NeXT all rights reserved
> > > Is somewhat problematic for me. I am not a lawer, I don't have the
> > > knowledge to investigate what it can mean to me now, nor in the  
> > > future.
> > > And it is in a lot of .h files... :(
> > >
> > > If someone can garantee me that I won't get into trouble, that I can
> > > treat it as Open Source... that I might think it over. But for now  
> > > there
> >
> > > are too much things in there that I feel might me get into trouble.
> >
> > What I would do here If I were you in that situation: Ask the  
> > developers
> > of MusicKit (<leigh@leighsmith.com> and  
> > <musickit@ccrma.stanford.edu>).
> > They _should_ know what is possible and what not: no more guessing and
> > assuming necessary ...
> >
> > > Dennis Leeuw
> >
> > greetings, Lars
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:59:31 +0100
> > From: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com>
> > Subject: Ann: Ocean db-0.1.3
> > To: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
> > Message-ID: <40435DE3.6020100@made-it.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> >
> > There is a new update for Ocean containing:
> > Gorm 0.6.0
> > ProjectCenter 0.3.6
> > Renaissance 0.8.0
> > StepTalk 0.8.1
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 17:33:02 +0100
> > From: Marco Scheurer <marco@sente.ch>
> > Subject: Re: Ocean and the search for a Music Framework
> > To: Dennis Leeuw <dleeuw@made-it.com>
> > Cc: GNUstep Discussion <discuss-gnustep@gnu.org>
> > Message-ID: <1BC2C6DE-6B9E-11D8-9A7D-000A959D091C@sente.ch>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >
> >
> > On Feb 29, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Dennis Leeuw wrote:
> > > Nope not an that page. But just do a grep -r NeXT * in the MusicKit
> > > sources or Apple for that matter.
> > >
> > > > > I am sorry to have to report this, but as it stands now I don't
> > > > > think MusicKit can and ever will be an OpenSource/Free Software  
> > > > > kit.
> > > > I think to demand that all software that should be used with GNUstep
> > > > _must_ have the copyright assigned to RMS is a little over the top.
> > > > BTW german law explicitly forbids the assignment of the copyright to
> > > > somebody else.
> > > Nope no need for that. But a line like:
> > > (c) NeXT all rights reserved
> > > Is somewhat problematic for me. I am not a lawer, I don't have the
> > > knowledge to investigate what it can mean to me now, nor in the
> > > future.
> > > And it is in a lot of .h files... :(
> >
> > I am not a lawyer either, but the fact that this source code is
> > copyrighted does not mean that it can not be used as you want. This
> > depends on the license under which it is distributed. If the license
> > says you can use it and distribute it, you're fine as long as you  
> > abide
> > to the terms of the license.
> >
> > NeXT, as the copyright owner (or Apple as its successor) could decide
> > to distribute the same files under a different license, sell it, or
> > whatever, but that's not a problem for you: they will not come after
> > you or remove your rights to use it as long as you haven't failed to
> > obey the license.
> >
> > As I understand it the MusicKit license is reasonable, not unlike the
> > Free BSD license. It does not have a publicity clause, merely an
> > encouragement to acknowledge the work of others, and an obligation not
> > to remove copyright notices (quite normal). It should be compatible
> > with the GPL.
> >
> > The GPL does not require that you give your copyright to anybody.
> >
> > marco
> >
> > Marco Scheurer
> > Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland   http://www.sente.ch
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> > Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
> >
> >
> > End of Discuss-gnustep Digest, Vol 16, Issue 1
> > **********************************************

--
Leigh Smith
mailto:leigh@leighsmith.com
http://www.leighsmith.com