[Freepats] Re: GPL for sound samples

[Mark Constable]

On Saturday 15 April 2006 05:22, Marcos Guglielmetti Gmail wrote:
> El Vie 14 Abr 2006 10:37, Roberto Gordo Saez escribió:
> > Again, I still have many concerns here. GPL can be interpreted in a
> > good way, but lawyers tends to push licenses in a way that favors
> > their position.

One point here is that if the copyright owner is the FSF, at
least in the case of any soundfont sets, then we can rely on
the FSF (perhaps also the EFF) lawyers interpreting the license
in a favor of our intended meaning.

> > GPL terms becomes much undefined when applied to 
> > works that are not software. I would prefer to be fully convinced
> > with more solid arguments than "i think it is",

Keep in mind, in this case, the "I" part is RMS so I could
interpret that phrase to mean "I do so think it is" rather
than "maybe it is so".

> > but anyway, it looks 
> > that I am the only one who sees a problem with GPL under this kind of
> > usage, so I will accept your other opinions.

No no. Roberto, it's excellent that you are querying the
relationship between the standard meaning of the GPL and how
it does, or does not, match up with our need to extend this
license. Please be as critical as you can find the time to
do so. We are not trained layers, and most everyone else here
are not even native English speaking, so any points that are
not clear should be brought to our collective attention.

> > Now it is time to continue searching for quality samples.

Good luck! I mean it!

> I am just reading, but I dont have solutions for now...

As far as the license situation is concerned I think we have
4 general pathways to continue down...

a) accept the GPL (v2 or v3) with exemption clause(s) and
   trust that this approach will provide a safe future-proof
   path

b) forget all such legal restraints, free ourselves from any
   such burden and consideration, and simply use a Public
   Domain (non-)license for everything we do

c) seek out and find some other license that may very well
   exist for our needs but is as yet undiscovered

d) start from scratch and write our own license

e) ???

There are pros and cons for each pathway and although I have
some reservations about a), the same ones Roberto has pointed
out, I think a) is the best approach so far. Perhaps a c)
could magically show up and a d) would require many months
of negotiation with many more people than our small group.

I would vote for a) because I am not aware of a better option.

The main thing that gives me comfort is the point that this
situation only has to apply to one "set of instruments" and
the samples that it is comprised of. Once the goal[*] of a
suitable GM/GS soundfont set is reached then we are not
bound to always use this license, for similar purposes, in
the future.

[*] I just realized that "the goal" of this project has been
ill-defined or even non-existant... something that is still
evolving. Perhaps not in this thread, but some thought as to
just what we should be aiming for could be started with a
different Subject line so it has it's own thread in the 
mailing-list archive.

--markc