On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 22:11 +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > David Raleigh Arnold <d...@openguitar.com> writes: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:52:03 +0100, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2012, at 21:58, David Raleigh Arnold wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-01-19 at 11:05 -0800, Bernardo Barros wrote: >>>> Open software people tend to consider artists as being equivalent to >>>> programmers, so they think artists should starve. I have no sympathy >>>> with that view. Obviously. Knowledge should be free, Yale to the >>>> contrary. Art shouldn't be free until the artist gets his. >>> >>> The source code of the lilypond score is not the `music' or even >>> `art', so maybe people get confused. >> >> That is true of the program code, but not the data. > > According to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, computer programs are protected > as literary works as in the Berne Convention: > http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html#P56_5626 > >> The >> document must carry a copyright notice if it contains the notes, >> because it is the composition written in a form of musical notation. >> The complete source, published with a copyright notice, would copyright >> the piece. Published without the notice, all copyright would be lost. > > > This is not the case in the US since 1989: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice > > Hans We have drifted from the issue here. If your recommendation is to include the notes of an original copyrightable musical composition in an upload to be used as an exemplar of lilypond, your advice is absolutely terrible. Substitute something in the public domain, and make it short. Computer programs should have been without protection until new laws were written. They are a bad fit for either copyrights or patents. There was a bad judge who didn't have the discipline or wisdom to dismiss the first case, and so we have a lot of bad law. Proprietary programs are already greatly retarding progress or halting it instead of advancing it. The time on programs should be *less* than the time on patents, since no physical working model needs to be made. Copyrighted material is intended to have a useful life after the expiration of copyright, not to be useless, like CP/M or Windows 3.2 or 98 for example. Regards, daveA -- Information is not knowledge, indoctrination is not teaching, tradition is not evidence, and belief is not truth. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
