Conversation
Notices
-
♻ @KompaLaw: Was mich ja an der GEMA fasziniert: Wieso habt ihr Musiker usw. …so lange bieten lassen? http://t.co/glHxtE1A
-
@arnebab you put songs under the gpl? how does that work?(I guess if you made them in lmms or something you could say t…
-
@fontana even though public performance might enable other parties to make copies, e.g. by recording the song?
-
@tekk The source is the sheet music, what I sing (recording or sound waves from body and guitar) is both source and binary at the same time
-
@lxoliva Actually I don’t care about the distinction: People can get the sheet music under GPL and record what I sing.
-
@lxoliva If they don’t record what I sing, they have no right on the source (don’t have the binary) and if they do, they have the source :)
-
@arnebab I'm concerned about 3rd-party compliance. they'd have to recite the GPL as part of their public performance to comply
-
@lxoliva I don’t have to put the GPL into the GUI of a program, I just have to have it with the program. Having it at hand should suffice.
-
@lxoliva For example like this: http://ur1.ca/8qlbq
-
@arnebab but if you convey a work under GPLv3, you have to give (not just offer) a copy of the GPL to the recipient
-
@lxoliva please remind me to get back to you about that this evening…
-
@arnebab get back to you about what? I forget... :-D
-
@lxoliva Hm, I see the problem. How do you solve it for offering individual source files, for example here? ur1.ca/9ko8j
-
@lxoliva GPL and songs. That’s also what my previous answer was about.
-
@lxoliva I think I would have a lot of fun if someone asked me to recite the GPL to have it side by side with my songs :)
-
@arnebab /me makes joke about volatile memory ;-)
-
@arnebab now that's a good question! how does one avoid triggering GPLv2 revocation by e.g. posting patches without a copy of GPLv2?
-
@lxoliva I don’t know.
-
@lxoliva anything which solves the patch and source-browsing problem should also solve it for music. → !fsf an idea? ur1.ca/9koty
-
@lxoliva, AFAIK,at least in USA, not clear whether public performance right applies to software ∴ it's dangerous to use as part of policy.
-
@bkuhn ooh is there any case law? This is relevant for GPL/BY_Sa compatibility...
-
@robmyers, I'm certainly not aware of any. Indeed, if there were case law, there would be some clarity. That's my whole point to begin with.
-
@bkuhn 'cept we're talking about music, oddly licensed under GNU GPL
-
@lxoliva GPLv2 had some special rules about giving out copies in small numbers, iirc.
-
@lxoliva You are presumably copyright holder? If so you can't really revoke yourself.
-
@jxself patches are normally derivative works; point is © holders of original can revoke my license for infringing with patch
-
... assuming the patch is substantial enough to be copyrightable.
-
@lxoliva Consider what's in the patch. Seems strange that someone could revoke your ability to distribute something you wrote.
Betty Long likes this. -
@jxself if the patch happens to be a derivative work (and IIUC most patches are), copyright law grants just this kind of power
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the