[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #7793] Submission of Opéra Libre

From: Valentin Villenave
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #7793] Submission of Opéra Libre
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:41:41 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080208 Mandriva/ (2008.0) Firefox/

Follow-up Comment #2, task #7793 (project administration):

Hi Sylvain, thanks for replying.

I'm kind of new at actually *writing* licences, so I'm grateful to you for
making some points clear. I hope you can help me a bit further, even if my
project is not accepted on Savannah. (As a matter of fact, I haven't really
had any chance yet to talk with anyone about licencing issues; I had very few
answers on and the APRIL just left my questions unanswered).

1- About the "non-free performances", what I meant was concerts where the
public is asked for a fee, very simply. I know that GPL allows
commercialization but some people around me made me suspect this could be a
Let me take an example: perhaps you know about; that's a
huge website where users can post any (free) music they've edited themselves
using LilyPond. However, Mutopia's founder, Chris Sawer, keeps rejecting any
GPL-licenced score:

"These are great for software, but have some serious limitations when it
comes to music, one of the most obvious being that they do not state what the
performing rights for pieces licensed under them would be.
[Besides, he fears that it might prevent] any commercial use of the music
whatsoever, including for example in a school concert where an entry fee is
charged. We are very keen that all music on Mutopia remains free to distribute
and perform, even at events where an entry fee is charged."

I am aware that the GPL is not originally made for such things as a music
score, which is why I'm trying to add several exceptions in order to make it
suitable. For instance, speaking of performances, maybe I should mention
something about "live" recordings freedom too.

2- Applications of the Berne convention: yes, you are absolutely right. I
knew these points were not mandatory, but still I wanted to emphasize them --
the README would be a better place indeed; I hadn't thought about it.

3- Yes, it was kind of weird to write GNU/LilyPond as in GNU/Linux :) I had
no idea the slash could be removed though.

Anyway, many thanks for figuring out whether I can keep trying with my GPL
idea or not. The problem is that unlike a software, where you basically have
two levels of interpretation:
the source => the binaries,
this project has many more layers:
the source => the score => the performance => the recordings, etc.
Of course, I'd like to protect (i.e. set free) every step. But the first one
(the source) is obviously the most important one.



Reply to this item at:


  Message posté via/par Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]