Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 28 Mar 2004, at 19:17, Douglas Boyce wrote:

> so a separate license that deals with the distribution of the print 
> score
> would be very helpful, but would need to be fairly limited in scope 
> since it
> would, down the road, interact with other peoples rights as 
> performers.  to
> my mind, a 'commercial performance' license would be very helpful to
> advancing cc and copyleft models of behavior in a community that 
> currently
> has remained very resistant (or unaware) of them, and would give 
> performers
> freedom to do what they can, and make as much money as they can with 
> the
> piece.  adding contact info and a note that the performance limitation 
> is
> easily waived works, but is a bit inelegant.

One difference between commons/open/gift content and open source is 
that with open source, it's the "score" that is open. You can compile 
(perform?) and distribute (publish?) the resulting binary (recording?) 
for as much money as you like, but the source must remain freely 
available and modifiable.

This may be a fairly deep problem with open content music as conceived 
of by new media weekend-DJs, but it is a *perfect* match for 
contemporary classical music. I think if you apply the GNU FDL with 
invariants or CC-BY to the score you will achieve something close to 
what you're after.

- Rob.