Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Romain d'Alverny said:
> Selon Greg London <email AT greglondon.com>:

>> 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.
>

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

yes. but a Performance is not an Artistic Expression in
FIXED FORM. It is a performance. A one time experience.

>> 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.

No, if you use a tool to create a new form of the expression
in fixed medium, then that fixed medium is a DERIVED work,
not a PERFORMANCE.

Source Code is run through compiler to create executable code.
this executable code is considered a DERIVED WORK of the
source code, not a PERFORMANCE of the compiler with the
source code as sheet music.

If it creates a fixed form, it is Derived.

GNU-GPL uses this to prevent others from compiling proprietary
software in with the GNU-GPL code. Since compiling is deriving,
the original author has the right to control who can derive.



> 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.

Good Gads, I'd have to disagree.

the GNU-GPL is extremely long and detailed, but it serves a SINGLE
purpose: to place the licensed code into a Gift Economy,
to give every right away possible, except for the ones that
would allow proprietary authors to extend the software,
relicense it "All Rights Reserved" and then compete
with the "Open" version of teh software.

All derived works in GNU-GPL remain GNU-GPL, and therefore
remain in the Gift Economy. all other rights are given away.

There is no need in a Gift Economy to restrict performance,
because performance does not create a derived work that
can compete with the original work. it is a one-time
experience. Recordings of a performance would have to
be Open, but the performance itself can be Closed, so
you could prohibit recordings at your concert.

the right to Perform a work should be treated as a
Public Domain right if it is going to be treated
like a Copyleft license.