Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Romain d'Alverny <aperio AT free.fr>]

Selon Greg London <email AT greglondon.com>:

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

I am not so sure.

> 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.

But Copyleft already allows commercial purposes, so that's not a big 
improvement.

That would mean, instead, that you could license your performance of 
this score for strictly closed purposes : not delivering any right
with it.

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

It would more correct to say : Linux is Copyleft, but may be runned for
proprietary software and purposes.

> a "performance" does not compete with the "score".

That depends highly on what you consider a score (paper, notes, midi,
drawings, explanations, movie, music itself) and a performance (notes,
drawings, danse, music again).
Different community of composers, performers and listeners do not
share the same approach on "their" topic ; and that may evolve still.

Actually, I think that the suggestion from Douglas Boyle to add a 
performance option (Permits/Prohibits, commercial/non commercial - but
what is 'commercial' then ? is that question solved ?) on CC
licenses would be safer and simpler.

It puts more weight on the license again (one more option), but I am not
sure that the copyleft applied to sheet music would be understood
as applying only to the sheet, and not the 'rendered' music.

Why I am saying this is that the Free Art License, for instance,
explicitly allows performance of works.

My point of view.

romain.