Solfege Resources -- 404 bach chorales in Lilypond format with Movable Do solfege.

[Phil Hézaine]

Hi Michael and all,

Copy from the previous discussion:
Le 31/12/2010 20:33, Michael Ellis a écrit :
> Hi Phil,
> The problem is pretty well solved. I'm just cleaning up a few things
> in my scripts today.
>
>  I don't have all the answers yet regarding copyrights.  Margaret
> Greentree's site seems to claim copyrights only to the PDF images > >
> and those are freely shared for non-commercial use.  So I'm not quite
> sure how that might apply to works derived from the MusicXML files.
>
> My thought was to release my versions with attribution to her and a
> Creative Commons license with similar conditions -- free use for
> non-commercial purposes with attribution and share-alike.
>
> Initially, I'm going to put the files into a googlecode site so it's
> easy to allow more than one person to edit them.  I'll be happy to add
> your name to the list of "developers" for the site.  Later on, I want
> to put up a free site that can serve PDF, midi, and mp3 files.
>
> Looking forward to working with you!
>
> Cheers,
> Mike

It's not my goal to begin a troll or flames war but i'm a bit stumpled
with the licence. I have great respect for your choice and Margaret
Greentree who is a passionate artist but I want to explain my thoughts.
I have no problem with a Creative Commons - non-commercial license when
the copyright is 'alive'. I have even used it for one of my own work
for the main reason that I want to impose a percentage of redistribution
for Free Software or humanitarians goals in case of a commercial
product, even for one song. If you agree to this clause you get an
authorization and all is right. It's the rules of the game. Not
completely closed but...  Anyway, this clause didn't suit me very well
with a virtual band from linux-audio on internet. At this time they were
Free like zealots.
But in the case under discussion the copyright is 'dead', and i don't
see a valuable explanation on the site for the non-commercial use. Hence
my questions.
Moreover, there are chorals which aren't changed from the Public Domain.
I've checked some of it against my sources. Well, only a little bit.
And i'm not sure of the data integrity of her typesetting.
Then, why to claim a clause of copyright non-commercial without arguments?
What a shame that Margaret Gentree is not on this list. We could have a
better understanding. Are Barenreiter or Musica Budapest's sources
closed? I don't know for now. Is there a special wish with the license?
We don't know.
Could we use her work in a GNU app like GNU Solfege without
infringements between the GPL and her license?
Like I said it's not at all a flames war, but there are too many
questions about this.
Would you like some more? I'm neither a professional engraver nor an
editor but I'll agree with a professional publishing of the chorals,
whether it happens. With a Free Art License, for example, we need of an
advanced (progressive) editor who accepts to publish a book while the
sources are available for free on internet.
One of the deeper feature of Lilypond is the mutation of the traditional
engraving towards a computerized engraving. And all of this is GNU, it's
worth thinking about. Even more when a copyright is 'dead'.
Or I'm missing something?
 To Michael: I'm not at all a dev, a programmer, rather a poet of the
free culture and an average user of Lilypond. I'm very far away from
having your knowledge and your 'savoir-faire' in this area.
For now I plan to publish the 371 chorals from Breitkopf with a Free Art
license, and if all is right, to publish a different organisation of the
same sources later. If you agree to include this stuff on your site, it
will be a pleasure.
Be sure i appreciate your work.
Cheers.