On Copylefting Your Text?

eclectric asks: "This subject has been mentioned in passing in a few slashdot comments in recent weeks, but I for one would like to find more information on the subject of copylefting text. I've seen some licenses, including the GNU Free Documentation License and the Open Content License, but both of them seem limited to software documentation and academic papers, respectively. Is one of these the path to take, or does the creative world need a new 'copyleft' to combat the forces of evil, namely the DMCA. What kind of steps have other authors taken, including just putting their works in the public domain, to insure that their works remain free of the limitations of US and International copyright law."

Re:Not sure

[timdaly]

I am trying to start a home recording studio
and would like to use the GPL but it is unclear
that it applies to music. This is the same
question related to books.

Re:Not sure

[colin_zr]

From the GPL:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.

You could read this as applying to music as much as to software -- so for electronic music it might be, for example, the midi files and samples used to make the music.

It's not obvious, but I belive that you could use the GPL for music in this way. However, I personally would be inclined to use a more general-purpose free media license.

relevant to copylefting music

[solferino]

I am trying to start a home recording studio and would like to use the GPL but it is unclear that it applies to music. This is the same question related to books.

relevant to yr question here's some links on open licenses for music :

electronic frontier foundation's open audio license [eff.org] (there was a slashdot discussion on this when it first came out)

open music registry [openmusicregistry.org] (site acting as a registry of open audio licensed music)

open music [linuxtag.org] (not sure about this group's bona fides - just found them through a google search)

Copyleft may be insufficient

[colin_zr]

The first thing is that there are a number of these licenses, some specific to particular media, some more general-purpose. I count nine [rtnl.org.uk] so far (and I'm always looking for more). As a musician, I use the CzrPL [rtnl.org.uk] which I wrote myself.

</self-promotion>

In some ways I suppose you could argue that this is insufficient. If your work gets incorporated into another person's work (as it should do under copyleft) but the derivative work is placed in an encrypted format then breaking the encryption is illegal under the DMCA regardless of the user's rights as a recipient of a copylefted work.

I believe that the GNU FDL specifies some conditions about open formats to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Re:Why bother?

[Phork]

you seem to be misundertsanding one of the key things about free(libre) software, and these other new free media liscenses that work to the same effect. When you create a creatibve work, you are automatically assigned the copyright to that work. Having this copyright allows you to controll how your work is distributed. It allows you the right to choose to place it under the GPL, and because you hold the copyright on that work someone else cannot just take it and decide to distribute it under some other liscense. Copyleft is not the opposite of copyright. Public Domain is approxemitly the opposite of copyright.

somebody is thinking about textbooks

[an_mo]

Read this initiative [ucla.edu] for an example of an alternative licence, but more importantly for tentative applications:

• The open textbook project [inlimine.org]
• open mind publishing [ompg.com]
• The Wikipedia [wikipedia.com]

I'm sure ther's more....