GPL Policy

Discussion among members of the development team.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Jetrel » September 15th, 2008, 8:00 pm

:| I'm feeling like a sucker for pain, so here goes. I feel this is important to say.

(and *only* music, nothing else since other areas have other requirements and make it easier to eg modify things):


For what it's worth, I stand by the choice to make all of our art GPL, and I refuse to relicense it under another license. We did this for a reason. I (and others before me) want people to have the right to reuse and modify our art. I want that culture of freedom. I want that world of possibilities. A caged bird cannot fly.


It doesn't hurt me if someone 'misuses' my art. And that's all this is about - being 'hurt' as an artist if someone 'misuses' our work. We choose not to be hurt, as a kindness to the world at large. We choose to make this a gift, with no strings attached. We choose to love the mistakes, and love the people making them. We're big, tough leathernecks, and our feelings can't be hurt.


:) Thanks to the lack of scarcity, no matter how many people 'misuse' our work, it's still out there to be used right. If someone has the ability to make a game that's even more tasteful, and even better than wesnoth, with wesnoth's graphics, I want them to have the right to. I want them to have the right to stand on the shoulders of giants. Look at this: some guy just ported wesnoth to being a browser-based game - that's freaking awesome. We deliberately chose to let people do this. People can do lousy things, but also other wonderful things we'd have never imagined or planned with our work - and it's only the wonderful things that will be remembered. Maybe someone will try making a wesnoth CCG? Maybe someone will make Wesnoth: the board game. There are a world of possibilities out there because we left the door open, and people don't have to ask permission. Just share the love - take our spark and build a fire.


Besides, even if we have it legally locked down, people are going to steal+misuse it anyways if it's any good. We can hunt them down, but it's a waste of our time. Our time is better spent making the things that are worth being ripped off. Plus if we lock it down, we're most likely to snuff out all the good and clever reuses (which are by necessity very open and public), and leave only the clandestine and cheap ripoffs.

The other thing is that every time someone 'rips off' our stuff, it's a tacit acknowledgement that they love our stuff; in fact, they think it's so good that there's no point in them trying to do better. They're kneeling at the altar of our work. In return, we can kick them as the prostrate themselves ... or we could do what we did already, which is to put our stuff under a license that thanks them for being our biggest fans.

That someone else can take the music and claim it as their own without anyone knowing is my biggest fear. That all the countless hours I put into making music will be for naught, because some cretin is going to "steal it" and pass it off as their own.


:eng: I used to be scared about this too, until I realized:
1] No license, no matter how restrictive, can prevent this. If they can hear it, they can record it and steal it. The law only protects you if you catch them, and furthermore, if you can afford the cost (be it time or money, or both) to pursue a legal penalty.
2] If your work has any value in its uniqueness, then you alone are the goose that lays the golden egg. They can steal the result, but they can't steal the ability to create - and the ability to create is the only thing useful to a potential employer. If they can't actually make the work themselves, they're useless, there.
3] If your work becomes really famous under someone else's name, you can instantly become famous by proving the theft - without even needing lawyers. The internet will do that for you - it'll spread the news of the work being ripped off all over the world, and will smother the thief's fans in the truth. At which point they will instantly be very interested in you.
4] There are two reasons people make art/music for wesnoth (or any project where they're doing it for free). "Fame" by accreditation is one. The other one is that we're making stuff so that people can enjoy it. Having someone claim they're the creator of a work does (slightly) hurt one's fame*, but it actually helps the second point. It puts our works in front of more eyes, which means more people are out there enjoying whatever beauty it has to be enjoyed. And that's the main reason I made my work, here - I make all my art here because I want people to enjoy it.


On accreditation, and the human connection:
We kind of have this funny concept that if we're credited for a work, the viewer will be thinking of us as they enjoy the work - they'll be enjoying this sort of communion with the soul that inspired the work; but ... 99% of our audience, and 99.999% of the world at large doesn't even have a clue who we are - as individual people. Even if they're reading our names all over the work, it's like we don't exist. I realized this when I looked at the credits of movies/videogames for the umpteenth time - the names, without faces, don't conjure up the creators. I want to empathize with them - I want to share the communion that a viewer could share with a creator, but I can't because I don't know a thing about them besides their name. I need a different kind of interaction with an author to care about what they wrote. When I sit down and watch an actual interview with the creators - that actually gets their humanity across to me.

Which is actually a related point: The best defense in accreditation is a good offense, rather than a defense. The only way it means anything to your audience that you, yourself created a work, is if you yourself come across to them as a human that they know. Trying to legally defend "having your name on" a work is futile if the name doesn't mean anything to the audience. The best practice is to make your persona known to the audience. It's the reason webcomics have blogs. It's the reason penny-arcade, the most famous (and rich!) webcomic ever made has their blog on their landing page, and forces users to make a second click to actually reach the comic*. Because they want to register as actual humans with the audience. The musicians I tend to care strongly about as people, I care about either because I've read/seen biographies (beethoven, mozart, stravinsky), or because I've directly read/seen interviews with them (Trent Reznor, many others). I care about the musicians on this project because I know them.

Defending your name on something ... doesn't really do any good, if you don't already do the one thing that actually matters, which is making yourself familiar as more than just a name, to your audience. You need to put yourself inside their monkeysphere.

I'm going to link that again, because it's such a staggeringly important concept:
http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_wh ... phere.html


Another funny anomaly is that legal protection for accreditation doesn't change in response to the scale of fame. If you never become famous, no one cares if your work was made by you (because they don't know you, see above); as far as they're concerned, even if your name is all over it, your work was just made by "some person" who happens to have your name. If you do become famous, then it doesn't matter how protected your work is, because you're so famous that everyone will know who really made it, anyways. No one can cover a major band's tune without everyone knowing that they're covering that tune - it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Plus, if some nobody composes a tune and has it stolen by some famous artist - that nobody has a one-way ticket to stardom the moment that 'theft' gets found out, especially in the days of today's internet when word travels so fast and wide. People will want more, and they can only get it from the goose that lays the golden egg.





* Anyone studying classic marketing would view this as capitally insane. Make it that much harder for them to reach the comic? - they might leave! Penny arcade is evidence that's it's more on the lines of genius.
Play Frogatto & Friends - a finished, open-source adventure game!
User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
 
Posts: 7241
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Jetrel » September 15th, 2008, 8:34 pm

To wit:
"You can't steal a gift." Dizzy Gillespie, defending another player who'd been accused of poaching Charlie Parker's style: "You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it you can have it."

Our stance is/has been to do likewise.
User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
 
Posts: 7241
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Urs » September 16th, 2008, 12:35 am

Although I count as one of the smaller contributors, and commentators at that, and I know this. Perhaps I am even speaking out of turn here. However, I would still like to say one thing:

I very much agree with what Jetryl said.

I know my opinion matters little to nothing here, and I know my few, limited contributions to wesnoth don't remotely approach the scale and artistic and creative value as any piece of music or contribution by, say, Jetryl, but I still stand by this philosophy.

If someone were, for example, to steal my art contributions to Orbivm* under the GPL, or even, I suppose, outside of it, I wouldn't mind. If they would mess them up and make them worse and call them their own, I wouldn't mind. If they would make them better and call them their own, I wouldn't mind. Yes, I spent hours on some of those. But if I could do that for someone, that'd be pretty awesome. I make the work for two purposes: To enhance my own artistic skill (although for that I also do other things, namely pencil drawing) and to further Orbivm or Wesnoth. And if someone goes along with that and finds even more things to do with them, that's great. Even if they go about it in a very dishonorable way.

Really, I don't think it would ever happen to me, at least not soon, seeing as my art isn't very, well, good, and lacking in amount. But if I did make, say, portraits, for Wesnoth? Or compose and play music? Would that change it? I doubt it. We are all still rather small in the grand scheme of things. We are no Leonardo da Vinci's or John Lennon's.** So, really, it would be an incredible honor if someone stole our work and became famous of off it. And what if they didn't? If they messed with it and made it worse? Well, then it doesn't matter, does it?

Again: I reaffirm that I am one of Wesnoth's smaller artists, and as such cannot speak for the greater ones, or for the Wesnoth community. I realize my opinion hold very little sway. But I do stand by what Jetryl said, and I want to make that known.

*Orbivm, the Wesnoth mod, is the project I have geared the vast majority of my creative resources towards.
**Of course I'm not trying to insult anyone. I just want to point this out.
User avatar
Urs
Art Contributor
 
Posts: 437
Joined: August 11th, 2007, 5:33 pm

Re: GPL Policy

Postby shadowm » September 16th, 2008, 1:24 am

Regardless of what license is chosen (still GNU GPL, revised BSD, CC-by-sa, etc.), I deeply hope it complies with the Open Source definition as is written (the inner thoughts of the people who wrote it in the first place are not enough for me, and possibly not for anyone else, specially a court).

I met Wesnoth thanks to the openSUSE 10.0 package (0.9.6 at that time) in the OSS repository - it had everything in it: the music, the art, the campaigns, everything. At that time, the music pieces included were those of ZhayTee and Aleksi (wesnoth-N.ogg, anyone?). If the music was licensed under something else than the GPL, the game wouldn't have surprised me as much as it did: the result of collaborative work licensed under the GPL was an astonishing master-piece.

I wouldn't have started contributing to the game if parts of it weren't GNU GPL.

Now, as administrator and founder of the Wesnoth-UMC-Dev repository: If a license that is not compliant with the written terms of the Open Source Definition is chosen, then I'll be forced to remove the music files from add-ons that have such non-OSD-compliant-licensed music, and I'll be forced to forbid uploading of such parts of add-ons to the Wesnoth-UMC-Dev repository, defeating one of the primary purposes of having started the in the first place: having a place where add-on developers can put their stuff, develop it, and keep all the components together despite anything that may happen to their lives/disks/etc.; and allowing others to take over maintenance of add-ons that get abandoned for whatever reason, since they'll survive the pass of time. Not doing so would get the whole project's integrity compromised due to the Terms of Service of Sourceforge.net.

At the moment, ironically, the only add-ons that may be risking the integrity of our project is Invasion from the Unknown (in its trunk and maintenance branch), by me. Two pieces: one from Rain, and other from Jeremy2. I asked them for permission first, yes; out of courtesy, but I assumed they were licensing those pieces under the GNU GPL, since they were intended for mainline (and I hope to push them to mainline after this is over; if IftU is mainlined, so are the pieces).

---

If the choice is made and is incompatible with the OSD, then I'm done here; in such case I will abandon my position as mainline developer and primary administrator/founder of the Wesnoth-UMC-Dev, because all for which I have literally sacrificed my time, sanity and life would be over. The same if this issue does not get solved soon and the discussion sinks into forgottendom yet again: I won't work on a project without a solid moral ground.

After reading Jetryl's post, I really, really hope we can continue using the GNU GPL for music - in such case, I suppose all that would have to be done is explicitly state that the source code for such media are the rendered files themselves (i.e. Ogg/*, MP3) to avoid further confusion, probably as an special exception prepended to the license terms.
Author of the unofficial UtBS sequels Invasion from the Unknown and After the Storm.
I also made Wesnoth RCX, a team-color preview tool for artists and content creators.
Elsewhere: shadowmBlogFollow me on Twitter
User avatar
shadowm
Wesnoth.org Administrator
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: November 14th, 2006, 5:54 pm
Location: Chile

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Jetrel » September 16th, 2008, 1:50 am

Also one addendum:
There's an unwritten rule in current art culture: "he/she who first creates a work is the ultimate, sacred arbiter of what shall be done with it."

:| Just be careful about treating this like a religious law. I'm strongly in favor of supporting the idea, don't get me wrong, but some people can break it. The canonical example is George Lucas and his Star Wars movies. Is the moral argument really that strong? Because what he did sure seemed wrong to me, and it would sure seem 'right' if someone were to fix his errors - legal issues notwithstanding.


The GPL is all about humility. It's about preventing the above, by accepting that maybe - just maybe, we're could be doing something wrong and we can't see it. Or maybe, that someone else out there has some ingenious idea we've never thought of. And we put it in our actual license, so that people can actually, legally do it. Either bail us out, or dramatically one-up us.

Yes, most of "those people" are [censored]. But some of them are ingenious, and it's worth keeping the door open to them. It's our capacity to think up (and do!) every last one of "the best" ideas, versus the entire world. Are we really, truly clever enough to win that one?
User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
 
Posts: 7241
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Re: GPL Policy

Postby dkaufman » September 16th, 2008, 2:05 am

I for one have no problem with my Wesnoth music being used as Jetryl describes, although I certainly don't speak for the other composers. My other work that is already licensed elsewhere obviously couldn't be included under those criteria (which was the question that started this whole thing).
GPL definitely does not hold up as a serious way to license music, but at the end of the day I doubt it really matters in this case - it's floated along this long this way for some time, and I doubt any court dates are in it's future :).
dkaufman
Music Contributor
 
Posts: 27
Joined: August 24th, 2007, 8:39 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Dave » September 16th, 2008, 4:41 pm

FWIW my position is very close to Jetryl's. He expressed things very well.
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Dave
Founding Developer
 
Posts: 7055
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle

Re: GPL Policy

Postby West » September 18th, 2008, 12:32 am

Come on people -- yeah, I'm looking at you, fellow composers -- don't let this discussion die now.
User avatar
West
Retired Lord of Music
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: October 30th, 2006, 7:24 am
Location: In the philotic connections between ansibles.

Re: GPL Policy

Postby TimothyP » September 18th, 2008, 3:51 pm

Most of the devs have made it clear that they don't just want composers/artists. They want a particular TYPE of composer/artist working on the game. They want the type of composers/artists who see their music/art as open content ready to be reworked by anyone as they wish to. I think it has become evident that the most important thing to Wesnoth developers is the vision - the vision in this case being what they consider to be the freedom/philosophy of the open source movement. This is the top priority and comes before and above quality. If one virtue has to be sacrificed, quality will be scrapped before the philosophy of the open source vision.

There are two types of music contributors - those who want to reserve all rights to their music, and those who don't mind giving it away to the public as "source". I am the first type, which is why I have left Wesnoth as a dev.

I think the only options are to change the license or require contributors to agree with and submit to the license preferred by the majority of the devs, which is GPL. Most devs don't want to change anything, so that means all contributors must agree to the GPL if they want to be involved.

I think folks like me are a minority and should therefore walk away and let the preferred vision continue to reign and thrive here. It's not good or bad. It's just the reality. Everyone here has valid concerns and opinions, and the majority has made its vote clear.
TimothyP
Music Contributor
 
Posts: 244
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 4:34 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Dave » September 18th, 2008, 4:37 pm

TimothyP wrote:Most of the devs have made it clear that they don't just want composers/artists. They want a particular TYPE of composer/artist working on the game. They want the type of composers/artists who see their music/art as open content ready to be reworked by anyone as they wish to.


I think that this is the same of most any project.

When Disney hires musicians, they don't want just any musicians. They want musicians who are happy to assign copyrights on their works to Disney and then have that music licensed over and over again with a highly restrictive license to help earn money off of theater showings, DVD sales, side promotions, advertisements, etc.

Likewise, we are a Free software project, and we want contributors who are willing to make their work Free. Having a myriad of different contributors who want to license their work in a myriad of different ways probably isn't going to work well for us.

Quality is irrelevant if the content isn't Free, because then we can't use the content and remain a completely Free project.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Dave
Founding Developer
 
Posts: 7055
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Jetrel » September 18th, 2008, 9:24 pm

On more of a legal, rather than philosophical, note:
It should be mentioned to the composers, here, that we're really unusual in allowing you to keep your rights to your stuff. Most games or films, even independent/low-budget ones, operate under a policy where you make music for them, and you lose all rights to it - you don't even get to host it on your website, or sell it. It's no longer owned by you, it's owned by warner music, or paramount pictures. Or Blizzard Entertainment. I don't know about you, but that kinda sucks. We're glad not to have to do that.

Dave wrote:Having a myriad of different contributors who want to license their work in a myriad of different ways probably isn't going to work well for us.

Exactly. Although we're not interested in taking away your rights, we really do need to have a consistent and permissive license, for all of our resources across the board. Projects do this because they are legally very vulnerable if they don't; any action they take (without having carte blanche to do what they want with a resource) could possibly be grounds for a lawsuit - unless they'd vetted it against the license for every single separate item in the game. That quickly becomes unmanageable; it takes more time to find out if they have permission, than it does to do what they wanted with the items. And if the licenses are contradictory, then they're just screwed. Thus, they usually come up with a single license that they ask everyone to use - like we did with the GPL. This is not ... unusual, or in any way unreasonable for a project to ask of a contributor. Practically every project (be it a movie, a tv show, a play, or a videogame) does this, if they're serious about publicly distributing the work.


Why GPL? Why do we need "derivative works" and "reuse by anyone"?
There are a world of reasonable possibilities for what we might want to do. What if we want to make a trailer for the game, scored to one of your songs? Do we need to ask permission for that? What about an expansion pack or a sequel? Where does one draw the line? AFAIK, this entire conversation was brought up, because a piece of music was licensed to a subset of wesnoth (a campaign), and not to the project as a whole - someone wanted to make that campaign part of the main project, and couldn't, because we didn't have a license to that song. We have dozens of user-made campaigns; we can't pretend that we're able to logistically track different usage rights on every single file. We will make a mistake, sooner or later, and then we're breaching contract. And the reason we need GPL (or some compatible free license) for a project like wesnoth, is that the boundaries of the project, and the boundaries of "derivative works", are fairly fuzzy. You could argue that you'd like to give something to "the wesnoth project", but where are the proper boundaries of that? People have branched wesnoth in the past, people have experimented with changing wesnoth to be more like an RPG or like a civilization game - in all cases borrowing some of our code and resources. It's hard to draw the line at just how much still qualifies it as part of our project - and any line we drew, could easily be crossed by even the "core game." We can't define that, so we chose a license that just says explicitly that anyone can use our stuff, as long as they follow certain rules. The boundaries of derivative works are also fuzzy. Within any coherent body of music, large motifs and themes in the music often get shared by several songs. In wesnoth, it's a reasonable expectation that people might do that to existing pieces. It's very easy to argue that that's derivative work; ergo, we need permission for derivative works. We can't leave ourselves vulnerable if you decide that some new song of ours, by someone else, infringes on an older piece you submitted. We can't take fuzzy "oh, I'm sure I'd let you do that" promises; we need it in the license, and we need the license broad enough to cover any use we'll need.



Ultimately we're really doing you a favor by:
1] Allowing you to retain full rights
2] While still allowing you a widespread and public venue for advertising your music; and giving you a huge audience (hundreds of thousands of people play wesnoth) to enjoy your work. Ours is an already-successful, already-proven project. You don't have to pour in the blood, sweat, tears, and drama to try and get your friends to finish coding the game engine, or to get your indie director friend to actually finish the filming he had planned. You don't have to hope and pray that the actors in the movie you're composing for are going to do a decent job. This project is already 'there'. It's not going to fail and be forgotten; it's already a success.

This is usually an either-or choice. Either your music goes unused, and just sits there in your portfolio, or some project commissions it and you lose the rights to it (or worst, a commercial project commissions it, later fails to ship, and you never get the rights back). We're giving you the best of two worlds. However, we can't legally endanger ourselves.
Play Frogatto & Friends - a finished, open-source adventure game!
User avatar
Jetrel
Art Director
 
Posts: 7241
Joined: February 23rd, 2004, 3:36 am
Location: Midwest US

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Aleksi » September 19th, 2008, 1:23 pm

TimothyP wrote:Most of the devs have made it clear that they don't just want composers/artists. They want a particular TYPE of composer/artist working on the game. They want the type of composers/artists who see their music/art as open content ready to be reworked by anyone as they wish to. I think it has become evident that the most important thing to Wesnoth developers is the vision - the vision in this case being what they consider to be the freedom/philosophy of the open source movement. This is the top priority and comes before and above quality. If one virtue has to be sacrificed, quality will be scrapped before the philosophy of the open source vision.

There are two types of music contributors - those who want to reserve all rights to their music, and those who don't mind giving it away to the public as "source". I am the first type, which is why I have left Wesnoth as a dev.

I think the only options are to change the license or require contributors to agree with and submit to the license preferred by the majority of the devs, which is GPL. Most devs don't want to change anything, so that means all contributors must agree to the GPL if they want to be involved.

I think folks like me are a minority and should therefore walk away and let the preferred vision continue to reign and thrive here. It's not good or bad. It's just the reality. Everyone here has valid concerns and opinions, and the majority has made its vote clear.


I must say i agree a 100% with Timothy. I couldn't have said it better.

Dave wrote:I think that this is the same of most any project.

When Disney hires musicians, they don't want just any musicians. They want musicians who are happy to assign copyrights on their works to Disney and then have that music licensed over and over again with a highly restrictive license to help earn money off of theater showings, DVD sales, side promotions, advertisements, etc.


(and)

Jetryl wrote:On more of a legal, rather than philosophical, note:
It should be mentioned to the composers, here, that we're really unusual in allowing you to keep your rights to your stuff. Most games or films, even independent/low-budget ones, operate under a policy where you make music for them, and you lose all rights to it - you don't even get to host it on your website, or sell it. It's no longer owned by you, it's owned by warner music, or paramount pictures. Or Blizzard Entertainment. I don't know about you, but that kinda sucks. We're glad not to have to do that.



Well, it isn't exactly the same, because in these cases you get paid (a lot). And it makes all the difference. Plus, the music rarely get modified by someone else, and you can choose that on your contract...

Now, working for free is a very good thing, and i still do it time to time. But then, i want my music to be protected by the license i wish. GPL does NOT give me this protection. It may on paper, but when you deal with a problem in real life, it doesn't come out that easy. Even if there is almost no chance this happens, i don't want to take this risk.
User avatar
Aleksi
Music Contributor
 
Posts: 534
Joined: November 12th, 2003, 9:00 am
Location: France

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Dave » September 19th, 2008, 4:12 pm

Aleksi wrote:Well, it isn't exactly the same, because in these cases you get paid (a lot).


Same for coders by the way. When I do something for a job, I get paid a lot. Does that mean I should try to retain more rights/restrictions on the work I do for Wesnoth, since I'm not getting paid for it?

Aleksi wrote:Plus, the music rarely get modified by someone else


Music contributed to Wesnoth also rarely gets modified by someone else.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
Dave
Founding Developer
 
Posts: 7055
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle

Re: GPL Policy

Postby Aleksi » September 19th, 2008, 4:20 pm

Dave wrote:
Aleksi wrote:Well, it isn't exactly the same, because in these cases you get paid (a lot).


Same for coders by the way. When I do something for a job, I get paid a lot. Does that mean I should try to retain more rights/restrictions on the work I do for Wesnoth, since I'm not getting paid for it?

Aleksi wrote:Plus, the music rarely get modified by someone else


Music contributed to Wesnoth also rarely gets modified by someone else.

David


Well, lets say i like to have full control of what i do, and what i own. When i get paid, i'm ok for concessions. When i don't, then i like to do what i want with my creations.

And "rarely" doesn't mean "never". But, the actual "my music getting modified" doesn't bother me that much, its much more the copyright that i disapprove.

But i think its unnecessary to go on with that discussion. I think everyone made they're point. I respect the GPL policy and philosophy and i regret i didn't look deeper into that when i first joined. I feel sorry because i had two new pieces i wanted to submit but if i can't license it under Sacem, then i guess i'm out too. :(
User avatar
Aleksi
Music Contributor
 
Posts: 534
Joined: November 12th, 2003, 9:00 am
Location: France

Re: GPL Policy

Postby AI » September 19th, 2008, 9:25 pm

Before reading the rest of my post, know that I am not a lawyer and it is very possible that I am wrong.



Having just read (part of) the (translated version of the) statutes of SACEM, it looks like the protection offered consists of an exclusive license to SACEM to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of the work, with the following exceptions:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of this Article, the Members of the
Society may retain the right to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of their works in films intended
for screening in movie theaters and for which these works were specially written.

The owners of the publishing rights in dramatico-musical works retain the right to authorize or prohibit
the reproduction of said works, totally or in large excerpts, in television films.

The owners of the reproduction rights in pre-existing works may retain the right to authorize or prohibit
the reproduction of said works in films intended for screening in movie theaters.


This means that it may be compatible with the GPL under one of these three paragraphs, though I doubt wesnoth qualifies as a movie theater or the like. Otherwise the exclusiveness is impossible due to the fact that the GPL is non-revocable.



Again, I am not a lawyer.


PS: SACEM seems to differ from the RIAA mainly in that it is a non-profit union. I don't see a good reason for trusting them.
AI
Developer
 
Posts: 2398
Joined: January 31st, 2008, 8:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Developers’ Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests