registering a composition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

antlists
On 24/05/2020 11:59, David Kastrup wrote:

> Wols Lists <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/20 01:08, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>> Actually, GNU allows charging for the software.  From the Preamble to the GNU GPL:
>>>
>>> "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
>>> price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
>>> you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
>>> charge for them if you wish)"
>>
>> You have freedom to charge for the SERVICE of DISTRIBUTING the software
>> (which I said :-), not the freedom of charging for the software itself.
>
> That is like saying I can charge for the service of distributing the
> contents of a book, not for the contents themselves.

Exactly so - you are charging for the service of putting the words on
paper, and for the paper and postage etc etc.
>
> What is the "contents themselves" without a means of dissemination, a
> medium?

You are not charging for the words themselves, and more importantly, you
are not charging for work of arranging those words in that specific order!

>
>> Yes, I know I'm being pedantic, but when you're dealing with the law
>> pedanticism matters :-)
>>
>> (GPL v2 contains some bugs, and some people actively exploit those bugs
>> as features ...)
>
> A license does not contain "bugs".  Pedanticism does not mean using
> words with a different meaning than anybody else.  It means using them
> more carefully according to their agreed-upon meaning.
>
So you don't understand the difference between the story, and the book?

If I walk into a bookshop, the could easily be a shelf that has just one
story on it, "The Half Blood Prince" lets say. There could be three or
four different editions, and maybe 10 copies of each. BUT THERE IS ONLY
ONE STORY.

In the same vein, I can take GPL software written by other people,
create my own edition, and copy it on to CD. I can sell that CD,
charging for for the physical embodiment and my work in creating said
embodiment, but I cannot - MUST NOT - charge for the software itself.
That is basic GPL 101.

As for bugs in the GPL, are you saying that software doesn't contain
bugs? Just as software DOES contain bugs, so do legal documents,
including the GPL! And whether you call them bugs or features, I can
list at least two bugs in v2, which v3 was intended to correct.

Bug 1 - the revocation of the licence - can you cure a breach of v2 by
simply downloading another copy? PEOPLE ARGUE - WITH REASON - BOTH WAYS.
The new language in v3 makes it quite clear that you can't get round a
revocation by obtaining a new copy, but also that if you do try and
comply with the licence in good faith then it isn't revoked.

Bug 2 - if you make software available on the web as two separate
archives, one binary and one source, this triggers the binary
distribution clause of v2. So if I make the source available, and offer
a pre-compiled binary as a convenience, I'm forced to keep the source
available for three years? THAT'S NOT FAIR. So v3 makes it clear that if
*you* *choose* not to avail yourself of the source at the same time as
the binary, then it's *your* problem - you can't come back to me later
and demand the source.

These are bugs, according to the authors of the GPL, hence v3 aiming to
correct them.

Cheers,
Wol

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

David Kastrup
antlists <[hidden email]> writes:

> So you don't understand the difference between the story, and the book?

You are working from the premise that everybody except you is an idiot.
That does not make a backdrop for a discussion but monologueing.  I am
not interested in that.

--
David Kastrup

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

antlists
On 24/05/20 12:52, David Kastrup wrote:
> antlists <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> So you don't understand the difference between the story, and the book?
>
> You are working from the premise that everybody except you is an idiot.
> That does not make a backdrop for a discussion but monologueing.  I am
> not interested in that.
>
Sorry. But Carl quoted from GPL preamble which says you have the freedom
to distribute COPIES of the software, and charge for it.

I said you cannot charge for THE SOFTWARE. I fail to see any conflict
between those two statements, and when you're talking law and litigious
lawyers, the distinction is important. Sorry. I probably spent too long
on Groklaw :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

Valentin Villenave-3
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
On 5/24/20, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You are working from the premise that everybody except you is an idiot.

Guys, stop bickering and veering off-topic.  The original purpose of
this thread was to help Francesco gain some insight into the copyright
modalities and possible publishing choices; arguing about whether one
particular license authorizes or not to sell software and/or CDs
and/or services may be interesting (though I believe this has already
been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, and by more knowledgeable people
than *any* of us) but it remains absolutely orthogonal to the matter
at hand.

Granted, I was probably the one who opened that can of worms in the
first place; although I do have my own principles and beliefs, the
only point I’ve been trying to get across is that Francesco has
_several_ options (and not that many risks), rather than the Single
Mandatory Way that’s ordinarily offered to authors and artists.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no invalid or morally corrupt choice
(even publishing under all-rights-reserved and subjugating oneself to
some private copyright organization), as long as it _is_ a choice,
made deliberately and not out of ignorance or fear.

Cheers,
-- V.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

antlists
On 24/05/20 14:18, Valentin Villenave wrote:

> On 5/24/20, David Kastrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> You are working from the premise that everybody except you is an idiot.
>
> Guys, stop bickering and veering off-topic.  The original purpose of
> this thread was to help Francesco gain some insight into the copyright
> modalities and possible publishing choices; arguing about whether one
> particular license authorizes or not to sell software and/or CDs
> and/or services may be interesting (though I believe this has already
> been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, and by more knowledgeable people
> than *any* of us) but it remains absolutely orthogonal to the matter
> at hand.

Sorry - I'm being the pedantic lawyerly type ...

>
> Granted, I was probably the one who opened that can of worms in the
> first place; although I do have my own principles and beliefs, the
> only point I’ve been trying to get across is that Francesco has
> _several_ options (and not that many risks), rather than the Single
> Mandatory Way that’s ordinarily offered to authors and artists.
>
> As far as I’m concerned, there is no invalid or morally corrupt choice
> (even publishing under all-rights-reserved and subjugating oneself to
> some private copyright organization), as long as it _is_ a choice,
> made deliberately and not out of ignorance or fear.
>
AOL.

As I said, I probably spent too much time on Groklaw. I've come across
too many - REAL - examples where this nitpicking determined cases...
often for the worse :-( (Admittedly, pretty much all in the US ...)

Cheers,
Wol


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

Francesco Petrogalli
In reply to this post by Valentin Villenave-3
I am replying here in the middle of the thread, because I decided to
opt for an open source license after reading the considerations in
this email. The source is available here:
https://github.com/fpetrogalli/trr

Thank you Valentin for "opening the can of worms". It's been very informative.

I have secured a proof of authorship with patamu.com before publishing
it on github.

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:21 PM Valentin Villenave
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>

[...]

> Good luck, whatever you choose! Not to put any additional pressure on
> you, but if your score is engraved with LilyPond and you end up
> publishing it freely, when that band performs it I’ll ask the -devel
> team how they’d feel about mentioning it on
> http://lilypond.org/productions.html :-)

I'd be honored! I'll let you know if the band (or someone else!) will
ever record this piece.

> Congratulations to your son; here’s hoping someday he’ll be able to
> write down his music without requiring your help!
>

Thanks! I hope that too! :)

Francesco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: registering a composition

Valentin Villenave-3
On 5/27/20, Francesco Petrogalli <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I am replying here in the middle of the thread, because I decided to
> opt for an open source license after reading the considerations in
> this email. The source is available here:
> https://github.com/fpetrogalli/trr

Hi Francesco,
That’s excellent news!  The score looks great, very groovy; the only
thing that’s missing, I think, is the date somewhere (in many
countries there are two things required for a copyright to be valid,
regardless of which license you may add on top of it: the author’s
name, and the publication year).

Good work, looking forward to hearing it and reading whatever you guys
come up with next!

Cheers,
-- V.

12