[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linart
Subject:    Re: Problems with the DSL
From:       Michael Stutz <stutz () dsl ! org>
Date:       2002-02-21 19:05:12
[Download RAW message or body]

Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment@gmx.net> wrote:

> 1. Rights other than copying and distribution
> 
> In l.76ff the DSL reads:
> | Your right to operate, perform, read or otherwise interpret
> | and/or execute the Work is unrestricted; however, you do so at
> | your own risk, because the Work comes WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY --
> | see Section 7 ("NO WARRANTY") below.
> 
> IMHO, this is not sufficient. 
...
> In order that the licensee can execute these rights, it is not
> enough that the license does not (further) restrict them -- they are
> already restricted to the extent. Instead, the license should grant
> them. Like this:

See the following ...

> 2. "publish or otherwise present"
> 
> In l.83f the DSL reads:
> | Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise
> | present verbatim copies of the entire Source Data of the Work,
> | in any medium,
> 
> What exactly does "publish or otherwise present" mean? Can you 
> give some examples?

You gave some good ones:

> |  * to exhibit the Work (if applicable),
> |  * to recite, perform or present it to the public,
> |  * to broadcast it, and
> |  * to make it publically perceptible from a recording or
> |    transmission of the Work,

I will talk to a lawyer about this, and see whether or not these
examples ought to be explicity listed or their permissions otherwise
granted in the license.


> 3. Modification without distribution
> 
> When I compare DSL clause 4-a (s.l.126f) with the corresponding 
> GPL clause 2-b, I notice two flaws in the DSL version:

I will talk to a lawyer about these items, too. The DSL is not
identical to the GPL so clauses may not entirely correspond. But you
should be permitted to modify your own copy and not distribute it. 
In practice, copyright law does not really offer any real protection
for modifications that aren't distributed or otherwise made public.


> 4. Source code
> 
> l.53ff:
> | if the Work is an MPEG 1.0 layer 3 digital audio recording
> | made from a WAV format audio file recording of an analog
> | source, then the original WAV file is the Source Data;
> 
> I think the MP3 example in the Definitions section is quite bad.
> I agree that a WAV file is better suited for human modification 
> than an MP3 file (due to the lack of MP3 editors ;o)), but why 
> has it to be the original WAV file and not one derived from the 
> MP3?
> 
> 
> mpg321 --wav output.wav input.mp3

This WAV file might be good for some purpose, but it won't be
identical to the original WAV file because MP3 is a lossy format.


> 5. Too huge source code
...
> However, I heard that Cubase VST files are usually about 1 Gigabyte.
> In this case, the source code can be considered nearly
> undistributable.

It was much the same in the early days of free software -- source code
was often distributed on tape.

There is a business idea in this. I think that in the near future,
free-information distribution businesses might become lucrative for
some just as free software distribution businesses had thrived in the
'90s.


> This means that when I put my songs under the DSL, they cannot 
> be rearranged by someone else, using Cubase (or any other 
> program that produces lots of crap data).

Unless they arrange to obtain the source from you on a physical medium
... it's a hassle, but I don't know of a better solution.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]