Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[Richard Stallman <rms AT gnu.org>]

    As I understand Song Storm, it is a project that evangelizes openness to
    musicians who are not on the internet and not interested in computers, and
    who have bought the cartel's story in every detail.  The details of the
    license are not important from Song Storm's perspective.

If someone suggests we support Song Storm, the question is how
it looks from our perspective.

    Does a right to share copies noncommercially apply to functional things 
    such as Microsoft Word as well as to expressive things like songs?

For functional works, the right to share copies noncommercially does
not go far enough.  Functional works such as software should be free
(free as in freedom--see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
for the definition).

However, I don't believe that music has to be free.  The right to
share copies noncommercially is sufficient for artistic works.  It is
ok if people must get permission for commercial use and modified
versions.

    What is important is for people to be able to opt in to freedom.

That's a fancy way of saying that people have freedom some of the time
and sometimes they don't.  It's not good enough.

    Similarily, as long as listeners can opt 
    in to music which respects their fundamental rights, they don't lose 
    freedom if there exists music which does not respect their rights.

      That was on our minds while Napster 
    was the focus, but Napster does not have to be the focus.  We are better 
    off replacing non-free music with free music than trying to make non-free 
    music free.

One program can substitute for another; if one C compiler is non-free,
we can solve that problem by developing another C compiler that is
free.  If the Unix system is non-free, we can solve that problem by
developing another Unix-like operating system that is free.  That is
what I did.

Songs are different: one song does not substitute for another.  So if
we are free to share song A, that doesn't solve the problem that we
are not free to share song B.  We have to fight for the freedom to
share all music.

      The GPL was 
    precise both because it had to be and because code allows that kind of 
    precision.  With things like tunes and punchlines you don't need it and 
    can't have it.

While you're saying this is impossible, Creative Commons has already
done the job.  The most basic Creative Commons license gives everyone
the freedom to non-commercially share copies.  All that is necessary
is a firm decision to use it.  If you prefer a simpler, shorter
license which does this, I would be glad to write one for you.

    There are now a number of us are working to help musicians who are more 
    open to prosper as a result of their good behavior.  The more popular 
    these musicians get, the more freedoms listeners have.

That might happen or it might not.  If these sites want our explicit
support, they should give explicit support to our freedom.

    A footnote -- it might be productive to forget about the listeners 
    completely and think only about freedom of musicians,

That's exactly what most of these alternative music distribution sites
do, which is why I don't support them.