Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

Douglas Boyce said:
> not all performers will have the same interest in copyleft that some of us
> do, and so, as a composer, it is not with in my rights to say that 'all
> recordings of my music will be released under a particularly open license.'

applying 'copyleft' to musical scores would not require
performances to be licensed the same as the score.

Copyleft requires verbatim copy/distribution with the same license,
and derived/distributed works with the same license.

performance is a separate category from copy/distribute/derive,
and from my point of view, "performance of a score" is like
"execution of code" and therefore would be treated as
"public domain", meaning you can license a performance
anyway you want, including ForCommercialPurposes.

Linux is Copyleft, but is used for commercial purposes
to host websites.

Copyleft is actually concerned with the way a commercial
entity could take an Open work, extend it, and compete
with the Open version of the work. I talk about this in
Drafting the Gift Domain,

http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#8_3_Copyleft_and_Public_Domain_versus_Competition

The problem is basically that if Microsoft could start
with Linux and extend it, then the Linux people would
always be a step behind, and no one would want to
download the "open" linux. Everone would pay for the
"extended, microsoft linux". and then the linux
community would collapse because all the contributers
would think "why bother?"

a "performance" does not compete with the "score".
Copyleft would want a derived version of the score
to remain Open, so that there isn't competition
against the Gift Economy.

but performance is like execution and would not be
cause for direct competiton with the Gift Economy.

I'm not sure if the CC licenses are worded this way,
but that's my take on applying Copyleft to musical
scores.