Re: Using the GPL for music

[Marti van Lin]

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> The FSF says the GPL is for code.
> 
> ...and other things.
> 
> They use it for graphics:
> http://www.gnu.org/graphics/meditate.html
> 
> And I think Richard has said the GPL is a fine licence for documentation.
> 
> They also say:
> 
>       The GNU GPL can be used for general data which is not software, as
>       long as one can determine what the definition of “source code” refers
>       to in the particular case.
> 
> From here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
> 
> And, as we all know, by "source code", they mean a "preferred form of the
> work for making modifications to it".
> 
> The definition of "source code" for music is certainly unclear, but then I
> wonder what someone should do if they want to allow people to link their
> music into some software (such as a game).  Maybe dual-licensing GPL plus
> cc-by-sa is the right thing to do?

The "Source Code" in this case is the Impulse Tracker (IT) file, which
will also be published.

If you look at The Free Software Song page:

http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html

You'll notice that I am not the only one publishing a version of The
Free Software Song under GPLv3.

HTH.

-- 
|_|0|_| Marti van Lin
|_|_|0| http://ml2mst.googlepages.com
|0|0|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com

I ain't no Vole and I don't live in a freaking hole!