On 2003-09-28 21:02:45 +0100 Ben Francis ben@franci5.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
"Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike" license their music is released under? I'd be really interested to know how some of the GPL gurus on this list think it compares to the GNU General Public License for software.
I've not heard of that site, but I have seen others. If you look at the EFF site and particularly their radio project, they link to some sites that use what they call "open audio" licences.
I don't like the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike creative commons licence. It discriminates against commercial use, which the GPL does not, and is "incompatible" with many other licences, which the GPL is too. If they really want to claim that "open music" is "open source" applied to music and they are using the OSI definition of "open source," then their work is not "open source" because it discriminates against fields of endeavour (all commercial ones).
Are music and software comparable in terms of freedom and distribution?
That music looks like software to me. Certainly all seems to be on computers. Maybe you meant "music and programs"? I think there are a lot of arguments for similar freedoms for all software, yes. You have to do a little translation from the FSF's Free Software Definition from programs to other works, though.