Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - [cc-licenses] licence scheme for sound software and its outcome

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber AT uni-hamburg.de>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [cc-licenses] licence scheme for sound software and its outcome
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:40:50 +0200

Dear list,

maybe this is interesting, so I post it here.


At 8:11 Uhr -0700 29.07.2005, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
I'm going to take a wild guess that "algorithmic output" (waaay too broad a term, but I can't think of anything else yet) might just be copyrightable by the algorithm's creator (in which case another CC scheme is not necessary, just use whatever license you prefer for the output).

Surely there have been disputes concerning ownership of screensaver output (apart from screensavers that have mickey mice or other copyrighted elements bouncing around) and some resolution thereof?

You should seek the advice of a lawyer. Also feel free to join cc-licenses (see http://creativecommons.org/discuss) and copy this there, it's possible some other CC fan/critic has encountered this issue.

Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
Hi Julian,

The CC licenses available from http://creativecommons.org/license/ handle points 1, 3, and 4 (depending what you mean by "protected" -- e.g., ShareAlike "protects" the freedoms associated with the work a la the GPL's copyleft), with the caveat that they are not designed explicitly for software as are the various open source software licenses.

I am not a lawyer and cannot give you legal advice, but I don't believe that any CC license, nor any other license I know of, "protects" a work created with the aid of software, again depending what you mean by "protect". If you merely want to give users the choice of selecting a CC license for work created in your software, we have web and web services interfaces for doing so, see http://creativecommons.org/technology/web-integration and http://api.creativecommons.org. Otherwise, you should seek the advice of a lawyer.

Hi Mike,
thank you for your advice. Of course I meant something like ShareAlike by "protect"..
Regarding point 3: I think this is an interesting point for creative commons, because it is about something that is not yet framed really in the normal way of thinking about software. Obviously it is not possible to make users of a software force to obey rules like ShareAlike if the software is a production tool.
But what if the software is an algorithmic musical score which outputs slighly varying results each time? So in a way software is now sometimes closer to what a "sample" is than to what a "tool" is. There is people who had bad experiences with publishing their code - which was, without modification, recorded and then published on albums without even mentioning the author.
I think it would be very good if cc had a scheme for such works, as it would proliferate open source music. Well, just an idea.
thanks again for your help,
Julian


From: Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber AT uni-hamburg.de>
Date: July 27, 2005 1:28:36 AM PDT
To: info AT creativecommons.org
Subject: licence scheme for sound software and its outcome


Dear Commons,

thank you very much for the great work! This is very helpful.

I would like to provide a scheme under which sound software developers/artists can publish their work (source code) so that:

* the source code is protected
* the sound produced by this code is protected
* it is easy to write this licence as a plain-text one-liner in the code
* it is easy to add new contributors (who might have changed the original code)


GPL does not fulfill these needs. Maybe you know a solution?


best whishes,
Julian Rohrhuber
--


--





.



  • [cc-licenses] licence scheme for sound software and its outcome, Julian Rohrhuber, 07/30/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page