[Freepats] About licenses

[Roberto Gordo Saez]

On 4/12/06, Mark Constable <markc at renta.net> wrote:
> That's the devil having his way with you :-)

Hhmmm... that theory would explain many other personal things...

> 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".

Yes, it does. But the compatibility concern is now bigger. It is not
clear for me whether it is allowed to mix GPL samples and the sound of
a digital Korg keyboard, for example.

*** Warning: Obscure devil mode activated ***

I will complain a little more ;-)

The modified exemption looks good, but it does appear to me that,
although the composition can be published under different licenses,
the samples used on it should be all compatible with the GPL. People
would want to use other samples, or digital synths, in their
compositions, and they may not be compatible.

Suppose I am recording a live performance made with free samples and
the public start to sing. I would need to ask the public to put their
voices in a GPL-compatible license; otherwise we where linking to
non-compatible "objects" :-)

I don't fully understand the details when applied to sounds. They are
perfectly clear for software.

I think that I agree with the GPL spirit, but not with the GPL itself.
Maybe the compatibility problem can be solved with the LGPL, but I'm
not sure. This is from the LGPL:

"If you link other code with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
it."

Maybe mixing can be viewed as linking, samples as object files, and
the executable as the composition? In this case it may work, but maybe
it opens some backdoors as well...

Some phrases in the GPL are easy to match:

"You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."

Since samples, unlike source code, are not plain text, the notices can
be given on accompanying text files. Ok, this is easy. But others are
more difficult:

"If a facility in the modified Library refers to a function or a
table of data to be supplied by an application program that uses
the facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility
is invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that,
in the event an application does not supply such function or
table, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of
its purpose remains meaningful."

Huh? I can think of at least 3 different corresponding meanings for
this when applied to sounds.

And there are also other issues. What happens if I want to distribute
only part of the composition? Say, for example, the first 20 seconds.
Is this also a whole composition by itself?

Now I make a composition based on GPL samples. Just a simple melody:
CEGDFABC#F#D#A#G# played with a piano sound. OK, this sounds ugly, but
it doesn't matter for now. Optionally, I apply some filters, changes,
improvements, or other modifications to the sound of piano. I record
this composition "as a whole" on a synth ROM, and I supply a file that
gives pointers to where each note begins, ends, loops... I distribute
this compositions with a hardware that plays pieces of it when
pressing keys.

*** Devil mode deactivated ***

Feel free to ignore the previous part of the message. Seriously now,
GPL for freepats is acceptable with me, and I will support it. I'm
writing because of the devil, as you pointed :-)

They are not a requirement for me, but I would like to see two
improvements, whenever possible:

- Allow mixing with samples/music/voice/tracks under other licenses.

- Find some way to clearly define what does correspond to source code,
link, library, object, executable, compiler... otherwise, there can be
many "backdoors". The meaning of the license can be modified by giving
proper interpretations to the terms. The LGPL is even worse than GPL
in this case.

My inside devil will be pleased if those two points are fixed, but as
I've said, GPL will be OK for me in either case.