IMSLP talk:Free content licenses

Hmm... the page title is getting wronger every day... I know that I moved it to this title (prior to the most recent edits), but the previous "CC-SA or similar" doesn't seem any more correct to me either...

Maybe at this point we should clearly state that all kinds of non-free works are accepted, as long as free download is permitted? Personally I'm not particularly happy about this, but apparently that's how it is. --Leonard Vertighel 14:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This is a concession that I have to make... whereas we can be idealistic and maintain that content be strictly free (according to the principles of GPL or even BSD), we have to face the fact that pragmatically this will run into trouble, as this shows... and no serious composer isn't part of some sort of composer/publishing rights organization. Hence, the question boils down to: do we want new music or not?
Whereas true "public domain" (old) music are certainly very good, I think we should also encourage new composers to offer their music at least for public study... instead of putting the bar so high that most serious composers just pragmatically cannot enter. I'm relatively familiar with new composers, and I know that normal composers do not want to worry about copyright, and most do not care about the ethics of the free software/content movement; they just want to write music. Hence, we must make it easy for them if we want new music; the idealistic and ethic issues only have any traction when the first hurdle is passed.
On the other hand, I have indicated clearly that all the exceptions should be explicitly noted, or they are invalid... which I hope will alert people who download the files, and be enough of a balance between the two extremes :)
About the title, I'm open to removing "free" from the title, just to prevent misunderstanding. I guess I'm a cross between RMS and ESR haha, or more on the ESR side depending on how you see it (not that I'm a fan of ESR) ;) --Feldmahler 14:51, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I've stopped being an idealist long ago. The only illusion I still have is that we might try to call a spade a spade, that's all. What's described in this page is not free content, nor is it similar to CC-SA. The rest is philosophy, and I won't go into that. If there are no objections, I'll move the page to the more neutral title "Admissible licenses". By the way, is it obvious that the phrase "performing rights" includes all forms of broadcasting and recording? --Leonard Vertighel 15:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
The title change is fine; dropping "CC-SA or similar" is fine too (though the reason I had originally used it is because back then it was actually similar to the CC-SA; the problem now is replacing the links to the page).
About broadcasting and recording, I haven't thought about them (I assumed they were under performing rights), but apparently this is not clear (looked up the Wikipedia article). You can add on the page that "performing rights" includes rights of broadcasting and recording, or you can list them side by side. I think these two are considered "higher" than normal performing rights anyway; if you need a license for performing, you will certainly need one for broadcasting and recording (makes no sense otherwise), even though it may be a different license, so its not much of a change :) --Feldmahler 17:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
P.S. By the way, if you can hunt down all the "Personal" tagged files (maybe using search?) that does not specify license type, and leave a note on the submitter's page (should not be that many), we can change the default "Personal" license to something much more like CC-SA. The reason I said that files tagged "Personal" with no license indication had such restricted rights was because of concerns about prior submissions. If you leave notes on the submitter's pages I could change the default "Personal" license even if it means deleting some files (either the submitter does not respond or otherwise). I'm still going to be somewhat busy for the next few days so I cannot do this myself. Good thing is that this busy streak is going to end soon :) --Feldmahler 18:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I've thought it over and I've decided not to deal with this, at least for now. There are several points that would need to be clarified, among other things the "Personal" tag is used for at least two distinct purposes (licensing of music, and licensing of scores of PD music), which doesn't help to clarify the actual license conditions. Moreover it's not one of the subjects that I'm particularly interested in (I prefer the free part of the library). Sorry for starting a discussion that I don't intend to follow. --Leonard Vertighel 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
That's fine :) I'll deal with this sooner or later; it has to be dealt with at some point in time. The current "personal" licenses are too unspecific for my taste. But anyway! --Feldmahler 14:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)


Due to recent revelations in legal understanding, I've decided to remove the "personal" copyright category altogether (and thereby avoiding both legal issues and everything else associated). From today onward, only a Creative Commons license is allowed for the submission of a copyright piece of music. Therefore, I'm redirecting this page to the Creative Commons license page. I'll update the Add Work special page to reflect this change. :) --Feldmahler 19:30, 18 May 2007 (EDT)