|
You know, if music were licensed under the GPL, that would be a absolute disaster. First of all, nobody would perform a GPLed work 'live'. That's kind of a big deal in the overall folk process distribution model. <g> In order to sing the GPLed song, one would need to first give a long discourse about the nature of the license; rights and responsibilities, and *that's before detailing the exact derivative relationships to OTHER GPLed musics living and dead. It'd be like that one scene in the movie "Network" where the 'liberation army' is so matter of factly negotiating distribution, redistribution, royalties and syndication issues with the Network.
Why does the GPL promote the folk process for software but when held to the light of existing folk process license (Public Domain), it appears so ...ASCAPpy. Pete Seger would have had to spend so much time talking about the GPL and going through all that, he'd never get a chance to talk about the Hudson River. Bluegrass banjoists would have to detail in AGONY the lineage of every freakin' Earl Scruggs tweak, and summarize every egomaniacal argument ever had between Bill Monroe and Ralph Stanley. The blues would have traveled up the Mississippi with a lawyer! <g>
Really, what's up with this GPL thing? What's wrong with PD? |
