[Freepats] About licenses

[Mark Constable]

On Monday 10 April 2006 06:39, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> > As far as licensing goes, I am personally in favour of using
> > the GPL v3 with a similar exemption as the above. That is just
> > my personal opinion but I feel this is the best approach to
> > future-proof any samples for the long term and guarantee any
> > improvements are also publically available... no matter who
> > or what organization makes those improvements.
> 
> I agree with this. Now you be wondering why I've suggested PD...
> 
> I just can't understand the meaning of GPL clauses when applied to
> samples. I've used the GPL many times for my own software, I've made
> derivative works of other's GPL code, and distributed GPL software.
> All of this even commercially, working as a software engineer for a
> company. I've read the GPL many times, and the meaning of every
> section is pretty clear to me when applied to software.

I am sure the devil resides within the details but the overriding
principle that concerns me is primarily that of "the source of any
changes and improvements must also be made available".

The fact that it has taken so many years for free and open samples
to become available indicates either; no one cares (to make or use
them) or it's really really hard to create them. I suspect it's
25% the former and 75% the later so to protect the future evolution
of a soundfont, and it's source samples, I "feel" (IMHO) that a
redistribution license that "forces" any future improvements back
into the public realm would best insure the longevity and vitality
of a soundfont.

It would annoy the heck out of me to put a lot of effort (perhaps
only money in my case) into the production of a free and open
soundfont then to, if PD, see a commercial company repackage them,
perhaps with enhancements, and slap on a license that then prevented
me from reusing that soundfont in any way.

> OK, probably all of us can, more or less, imagine the "spirit" of GPL
> and try to adjust it for the equivalent applied to music.

I'm not aware of any other license that "forces" changes back out
into the open. The GPL may not be a perfect fit for samples, let
alone for music in my case, but with the exemption to fix the most
glaring fault I think it's closer than any other license I am
aware of. IANAL and certainly no expert on license but in the
common press (digg/slashdot etc) I have not noticed anything that
suits the production and usage of samples and soundfonts perfectly.

> But exact 
> terms can be hard to correspond. I can't find any sense on some
> clauses, while there are others with just too many ways to interpret
> them, depending on particular definitions or situations!

That's the devil having his way with you :-)

> Please, note that this is a subjective problem. It seems not to be a
> problem for other people, but it is for me. The more I've analyse the
> GPL, the more possibilities open and more confusing is it. Well, maybe
> I am paranoid (I accept this possibility also) :-)
> 
> Compatibility. As a public domain work has no copyright, it can be
> combined with other works and re-released with any other license
> (GPL2, GPL2+exception, GPL3, BSD/MIT, CC...). There will be no
> compatibility problems in the future or in case you latter prefer to
> apply other license for whatever reason.

What you say is true and could be the case with various projects
but I would personally like to see at least one set of samples
formally released as GPL to prevent any potential abuse of the
future freedom for this set. I'm not saying you or anyone else
should agree with me but if a number of do feel the same about
this license issue and can agree the GPL is suitable for at least
one project until completion, then we have an agreed plan or
path to follow.

> There are compatibility problems with free software licenses very
> often. Personally I've been bitten many times by this; sometimes a
> chunk of code from one free program can't be mixed with other
> (Original BSD, Apache or PHP can not be mixed with GPL software, for
> example). A common problem is to link a GPL program with OpenSSL; this
> happens by mistake many times.
> 
> I would want to avoid this on music. It could be a nightmare.
> Sometimes can be difficult to detect: suppose I make a track with a
> drum sequencer, which produces output using samples with license A.
> Then, I record the sound of a piano using samples under license B.
> Latter I mix all tracks with a multi-track audio editor... license A
> and license B can be incompatible, even if they both of them are free.
> 
> The exception used in freepats should fix this issue, so it is good
> for me, BUT...
> 
> The exceptions says: "if you create a composition which uses these
> patches, [...] these patches do not by themselves cause the resulting
> composition to be covered by the GNU General Public License.". For
> simplification, I will interpret this words in a way such as the
> meaning is equal to the Bison exception, which says: "as a special
> exception [...] you may use that output file without restriction.". On
> other words, been not covered by GPL means the same that "use without
> restriction". I think this is the wanted meaning, but please, correct
> me if it is not.

As you would be aware of by now, Marcos contacted RMS and he has
blessed us with a slightly reworded exemption that more correctly
answers your concerns about "without restriction".

> Now, suppose that I'm not much creative (you know, heh? ;-) ) and I
> make a simple composition. This composition have some slow parts with
> silence and some separate notes from instruments.
> 
> Latter, this composition, which is not covered by GPL, is used (by
> myself or other people) to extract all isolated samples and make a
> non-free soundfont from them. Huh?

Good point. I hope the added words by RMS, where he says "the
compostion as a whole", covers this in that the assembled song
can be freely redistributed under any license but "our" GPL'd
samples would remain just that, GPL'd.

I think and hope that is what the spirit of RMS's exemption means
otherwise you do indeed raise a very awkward point.

The ultimate answer would be to argue this issue to death for a 
few years, while we all become lawyers, and write up the perfect
license that covers every possible scenario... or, as you say,
forget all the legalities and just release these samples as pure
Public Domain and avoid all lawyerisms.

When I try to consider both ends of the above scale and any options
in between (like any particular other license I am aware of or
perhaps any choice of any license per sample) I still feel the GPL
with exemption is the best initial path to follow for this particular
project. When "we" have at least one GPL'd soundfont and source
samples available, at all, then we could consider any other options
for any future projects.

I better finish this before my modem connection drops off.

--markc