[Freepats] University of Iowa samples

[Roberto Gordo Saez]

On 4/27/06, Mark Constable <markc at renta.net> wrote:
> A slightly strange situation. It appears the webpage itself
> is the pseudo-license, or the statement on their website.
>
> No explicit copyright notice means they are copyrighted, by
> default (since about 1976 I think), by whoever created them.
> The statement on their webpage is the "redistribution license"
> or usage conditions. If they really don't care then a simple
> statement like "These samples contained within this area are
> in the Public Domain" would make all the difference... then
> we could use them, without potential future argument, within
> GPLed soundfonts.. or any packaged system with any license.

I agree, I was also thinking exactly that.

> It's debatable whether these samples could ever become
> part of a GPL soundfont set... perhaps they can, but I
> can imagine the point could be argued either way.

I think he want the samples to be used without restriction, so I can
write him again to explain why would be useful for us to have formal
copyright conditions (or a clear PD notice). I think he will
understand our position.

It is probably a good idea to provide them some advice on this area.
For example, we can guess that they want a simple permissive license,
so we can send to Lawrence Fritts some kind of BSD/X11 distribution
notice and suggest him to use it with the samples instead of ambiguous
notices. The Public Domain Dedication by Creative Commons is other
possibility, in case the samples are really PD. Do you think it is OK
to ask this?

> It may be worth pointing out to Larry that the "having fun
> with them" part is somewhat restricted without a clear license
> of some sort.

Uhhmm... we would not be able to use them when not having fun... :-)

> I was going to say maybe we could suggest one but we don't
> really have something that is 100% suitable yet. Interesting
> point, it's not just freepats that is in need of a license but
> other folks too.. folks that probably don't want to think too
> hard about the issue.. and would perhaps rather ignore the
> issue altogether. I'm not sure if that is the reason in this
> particular case but it very well might be.

Yes, licenses for audio and other artworks are now a common problem.
Some time ago few people cared about licenses on their software, and
distributed under "freeware" or without copyright notices at all.
Situation changed, mainly thanks to RMS and GPL popularity, now most
people do care to choose a clear (and free) license for their
software.

In other areas, the situation it is still obscure. You will be
probably not surprised when I say that I personally know many people
that does not have any idea of what the word "copyright" does mean. I
can say for real that some people may think that "copyright" it is the
name of a tech company or something... :-)

Even people who publish artwork (photographs, for example) does not
understand how copyright works. Sometimes people want to make their
work free, but they does not know how. They usually think that simply
uploading their photos to a web page without any notice is sufficient
to make them free.

> I've been so busy lately I hardly have time to think about it
> myself.

I've been reading lots of legal information recently. And while
learning more and more details, things are getting more and more
horrible. There is just too many special cases in artwork laws, and
music in particular. To make things worse, laws have some subtle but
important differences around countries.

I'm also busy this month, so I prefer to take a break in legal issues
and give more time to search for some samples, instead for copyright
headaches. If you agree, I will search (and ask authors) for samples
under any free license, BSD (new version), the GPL (with exception
preferred), or other GPL-compatible free licenses.