|
Local Time: GMT: Feedback welcomed: 
 |
 LinksLicense Links
Articles
Sites
In the future, a site, Wiki.CLOH.Org, is possible. In the future, a site, Fle3.CLOH.Org, is possible. Software licence standardization
Michael S. chimes inProject Gutenberg releases everything they do in the public domain. Technically there is what they call a "Small Print!" statement which permits verbatim distribution under certain terms, or allows unlimited distribution if the license and all references to PG are deleted. With high bandwith becoming commonplace, and as it becomes easier to make and exchange audio recordings, I wonder if new forms of online communication will become popular and commonplace -- audio weblogs, audio mailing lists, "webmikes" (like a webcam but a microphone putting out streaming audio to the net). Surely there will be a niche for sending IM audio... As this applies to the free software world, the problem of specialized licensing will have to be resolved. Public domain as with PG will probably be one way (and not everyone will want to publish all of their works under a free license or put it into the public domain, anyway), and then generalized licensing. I still see the idea of a general license as worthwhile _only_ as a way to show the viability of it, with the ultimate intention of reforming copyright law itself (and once that happens, no licensing whatsoever). Richard Stallman is now discussing the idea of a "single unified license" on debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00142.html In fact the post only discusses the possibility of a license which covers software programs and its accompanying documentation, but it is a promising step that the FSF is acknowledging that such things are important and needed, and that it may be a mistake to continue with these single-purpose licenses. When the free software movement began there was no thought of copyright reform, or extending to other kinds of works, even manuals -- the licensing was all specific to software. So the fix will have to be a change in the GPL. As Walter Landry states below, general licensing may be the only route available right now: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00147.html This debate in various forms has been brewing on debian-legal for some time, as the issue of distributing non-software works is unresolved with specialized licenses, and the failure of the GNU FDL to comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines has shown (The FDL is a special license for documentation but, if applied to software, it would not be considered a free software license). It's worth following closely because when it comes to a head, the philosophical difference between freeness of works and particular categories of work may force a split between a distribution of free digital works (Debian) and a project to release free software in digital form (FSF). Here is a post by Mark Rafn entitled "[OT] free novels vs free software documentation" http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00379.html More: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/threads.html Especially the thread "The debate on Invariant sections (long)" What happened to Wikipedia when using the FDL http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00656.html What would be the best or most appropriate format for distribution of audio for Project Gutenberg? If there is a licensing question regarding MP3 then it needs to be addressed since this appears to be the most widely accepted and available format.> The PG project has been steadfast in its text elements by using e-text. The > choice to use TEXT only, not RTF, not some other format -- is a HUGE choice. > > To stick with TEXT is to choose against "the best" and for "the most > appropriate." Other formats are, perhaps, more advanced, i.e., pdf. > > To adhere to a standard has been important. Well done. > > To make a 'compression' choice is slightly different, i.e., zipped files. > > For PG, is the .mp3 format more of a "compression" option much like the > zipped files are to text? While MP3 or OGG are lossy formats they are much more practical than others -- for now. PG does offer alternatives to the plain text (zip, tgz, and I think even others.) > In some music circles, those participants frown upon the open-source release > of only .mp3 files. They want the raw files and optionally an .mp3. The > larger, more raw files, can be better mixed with other files (sound tracks, > extra instramentals, etc.). > > An .mp3 file to them is more like a binary file (computer software) and less > like a "source file." > > It might make sense to get close to source file releases of audio tracks. > People will be able to add sound effects, add instrumentals, and edit the > files if they are in a format that permits extra value added work.They might consider selling CD sets of the raw audio, and offer unlimited verbatim distribution of the OGG/MP3 files. |
