o11c wrote:_Speiros_ wrote:Other terms are that nobody except for me has the right to profit from using this music. Either it's used for free, or it's not. It's my music, and it's my right. Find a licence like that, and we've got ourselves a deal.
The whole point of the GPL is that we *can* do that. And a license that forbids commercial use would, in fact, get us removed from all major linuxes.
_Speiros_ wrote:But I'm not doing it at the detriment of losing ownership of any tune or song. I may want to make a derivative of my own music. The licencing for music TO ME is unacceptable at this stage. So maybe it's worth considering a different licence for music? Seriously, I'm happy to supply on other terms.
But you are *critically* misunderstanding the license.
Nothing at all in the license is exclusive. YOU, as the original artist, still completely own your work and can make derivatives under any license you choose (they just won't be acceptable for this game).
There is nothing in the Creative Commons licence that excludes others profiting from what I give free. I disagree with the licensing for removal from all linux or actually for anything, as there are other ways, whereas artists AREN'T under a CC licence, nor a GPL licence when they provide their music. I do see the improvement with the CC licence, but at the same time, it has this clause in it:
2. explicitly permits the relicensing of derivatives of works made available under that licence under this Licence or a Creative Commons jurisdiction licence with the same Licence Elements as this Licence.
I don't give permission for other games, encyclopedias, websites, or any other means available to use this, except for this game. It's not an exclusive licence, as I'm not giving exclusive rights, but I do give permission for themanaworld.org, or themanaworld.net...the game, as in a sound file, permission to use an agreed piece. But I don't give for instance, "Bob's Great Game Theme's" CD to include my work, and I believe that this is where the licence lacks. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate the clarification, but I've looked backwards and forwards at this, and I see it as this so far. The reason for this is because although a derivative would be made, the other part of the licence would come into play which says:
*3. Licence Grant* */3A Grant of Rights/* Provided that the terms set out in this Licence are satisfied, the Licensor grants to You a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) licence to exercise the following rights: 1.
Reproduce the Work; 2.
incorporate the Work into one or more Collections; 3.
Reproduce the Work as incorporated in any Collection; 4.
create and Reproduce one or more Derivative Works; and 5.
Distribute and publicly perform the Work, a Derivative Work or the Work as incorporated in any Collection.
Some of these terms on their own are acceptable, such as the distribution and public performance of the work...not the derivative works. According to the terms above, it shows that as the artist, I DO give away rights to royalties if for some strange instance that someone decided to make some money off it. It might sound minor, but I don't want to lose the ability to having a song which I wrote and release having someone else perform and make money off and lose my royalties. This licence allows for this, as technically, I am giving the rights to manaworld to make a derivative off. This can include a "version" for radio, and as long as I'm recognised as the songwriter, they are free to make their means, and yes, I'll be known as the songwriter...famous like Jerry Leiber..."Who???" you ask? Exactly my point...at least he got royalties. lol.
Anyway, if I'm wrong, or missing something, let me know.