Re: GNU FDL License on Mutopia

[Bernd Warken]

I was astonished to get only negative answers to using the GNU 
Free Documentation License.  I think it's quite good for getting
a common license scheme on all kinds of documents.  It is quite
hard to create a fool-proof license from nothing.  The FDL has a
long history of good-looking predecessors that turned out to be
buggy, and thus dangerous.

For me, Mutopia offers the chance to make available old scores for
mankind, just like hedging threatened animals in natural parks.
So there must be a secure frame to guard the scores from evil human
beings, i.e. a hardened license.

Public domain proved to be dangerous, e.g. in the 1980s, Unix 7 was
public domain, but was stolen by some clever industrial guys. Even
today, it is forbidden to call Linux or FreeBSD a UNIX system.
So public domain should be banished from Mutopia, and all projects
using it should be converted to an different license (that can be
done by everybody because it is public domain).

Next, the MutopiaBSD license looks quite good, but is it fool-proof
against theft or malicious attacks?  I do not know, but chances are
that the GNU copyleft people have more experience and their FDL has
superior security aspects.

> it says nothing about performance

For music of composers that died more than 70 years ago, performance
is free, being guaranteed by international laws.  So it is not
necessary to specify performance aspects for old music in the license.
For newer music, the FDL could be enhanced.  I'm sure that the
copyleft people will appreciate such a contribution.

> dual-license road

There is nothing wrong with dual-licenses.  It is common practice in
free and commercial projects.

But I agree that there should be a main license.  So I would agree to
temporarily use your proposed MutopiaBSD license in my submissions,
but you should keep the FDL in mind.

Bernd Warken <address@hidden>