One would have to contact a lawyer experienced with copyright to know how much of a change one would have to make to a piece of literature to call it their own. My guess is that it could be challenged after a certain percentage of it had been changed. This is not the case with
Open Source source code.
It is also not the case with music. If you released a piece of music under
Open Source I could go through it changing every 8th note (mean the one after 7 not the actual eighth notes) and then copyright it as my own. Granted it would not be exactly like the original piece but it would be darn close. You could not do this with an
Open Source program.
Don't I destroy the work of this poet if I just switch words around as it pleases me?
The original author as well as many of the audience may feel so; yet that is totally subjective and has nothing to do with
Open Source. There is no such value judgement in the license.
I can also give people access to the MIDI-Files and all the tracks (if for example my music has 8 tracks, people can download all tracks separately)... So people can remix and mashup my music and potentially (if they know what they are doing) create something new.
That is certainly getting closer yet because of the unique laws surrounding music copyrights tampering can mean you end up owning it and take the finished tampered piece
out of
Open Source.
The poem on devtome is free too, won't you agree?
Yes, because it would fall under the copyright laws surrounding literature. Yet a modified version of the piece may well not be free and may become proprietary at a certain percentage of change. A lawyer would have to be consulted to confirm that theory.
I think we can all agree that everything that is posted as open source is also always free.
Software without question. Literature at least in it's original form. Yet releasing to public domain would have the same affect.
But not everything that is free is open source. But artists can make their art more or less open source by giving access to all work material. But this is difficult if part of their work material is in their brain.
Therein is the rub. That is probably why the Creative Commons licensing came into existence. It seems to me a more common sense copyright for pieces of art, be they musical or literary.
- Nova
Thanks for your detailled answer.
I agree with all you said, also I share this basic fear about some asshole taking my free open source music, changing it slightly and then go and copyright it.
This shows why copyright is a completely evil troll-like system, and has to disappear from the face of the earth.
Stupid government invention to stifle the progress of human innovation, that's what it is.