[Freepats] Re: GPL for sound samples

[Roberto Gordo Saez]

On 4/15/06, Mark Constable <markc at renta.net> wrote:
> 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
[...]

So you want my devil to awake again, eh?
:-)

> 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

That's the reason I've mentioned public domain. Dealing with legal
matters is time consuming, and very ugly. And often, to be sure that
everything is right, is needed help from lawyers.

I acknowledge that public domain may have other problems. Unlike
copyright laws, which are more or less "compatible" in many countries,
I've read that the definition of "public domain" is not much
"portable". The creative commons page gives a small warning when you
select PD option:

http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-2?lang=en-us

When you put your work under PD using the CC web site, this is the
resulting notice:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

I have no idea on what countries is legally correct to use that
notice. Some programs included on Debian are PD and considered to be
worldwide free. But it is something obscure anyway.

> 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

This is much work, and we would need lawyer advice.

Probably is not an option, but as a curiosity, some time ago I've seen this:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this material, to deal in it without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sub license, and/or sell copies of this material, and to
permit persons to whom this material is furnished to do so[...]

It does mention "material" instead of "software". Reminders me to
public domain. It is almost uncopyrighted copyright ;-)

I think it comes from parts of the X server. And yes, it have other
problems too. It is no copyleft, does not have permission for public
performance...

Although BSD-like, it may require also the exemption clause. This
license does not force to put the resulting work under the same terms,
but when a composition is made, it has the samples included (possibly
modified or mixed); so the original license terms are already valid on
them. I think this is different from linking to a shared library,
because the copyrighted portions are on the same artwork piece.

> 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.

I am unable to propose a perfect option. Thought not fully
comfortable, I would also accept a). If possible, it would be good to
clarify the ambiguous terms.

Funny enough, I would also accept b), c), d), and maybe even e) with
no clear winner :-S

On his responses, Richard recommend to ask for legal advice. Yes, I
think that all of us would be happy to have such advice, but IMHO we
can't afford it.

We can try asking in some mailing list, like debian-legal, but we will
receive an endless stream of personal options and no conclusion. In
fact, this has been already discussed in that list; people pointed
even more problems than I do, and no solutions at all.

We can also try to contact licensing at fsf.org. This is a dedicated FSF
mail box for licensing questions. I've used it one time (years ago),
but I don't remember why. Not sure if they would be interested in
assist a non GNU project...