Reminder I am not a lawyer
I was looking at installing Audacity – a sound recording program because Adobe Audition is having issues for me
The following license talks about your output is yours if it is not a covered work
The GNU General Public License v3.0 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation
yet
“A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.” – GPLv3
A sound file created via a program that is licensed under GPLv3, a covered work or not a covered work?
Generally, I would think of covered work as a derivative application, like releasing your own version of Audacity, yet the way it is described seems like could get some to buy in and some to be leveraged which is not all good. Music producers having their capacity to profit off their work set to null does not seem like the goal of Audacity and other Free Software.
“The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. ” – GPLv3
“Audacity is free software. You may use it for any personal, commercial or educational purpose, including installing it on as many different computers as you wish. Audacity is licensed under the terms of version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation.” – Audacity license, hyperlinks on words not in this quotation
An output sound file is a work based upon the Program?
Blender also uses GPLv3 and states
“What you create with Blender is your sole property. All your artwork – images or movie files – including the .blend files and other data files Blender can write, is free for you to use as you like.
That means that Blender can be used commercially by artists, by studios to make animation films or VFX, by game artists to work on commercial games, by scientists for research, and by students in educational institutions.
Blender’s GNU GPL license guarantees you this freedom. Nobody is ever permitted to take it away, in contrast to trial or “educational” versions of commercial software that will forbid your work in commercial situations.” – License — blender.org
““The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.” – GPLv3
A work based upon a copyrightable work, like a derivative work?
Doctors, Cops, and Authority have time costs and legal costs, sometimes less might be more for those trying to release open-source software The MIT License – Open Source Initiative, yet I do understand the problem with free not always left free
More to factor in might lead to early divests, more legal ground if-ed might lead to early divests. People provide Free Software to enable the World, Future Generations thus I would like people to be able to invest with less burdens.
Corporations might lobby Government officials into creating new laws that allow companies to employ tivoization
“Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that they can change the software that’s running, but you cannot. If a device can run arbitrary software, it’s a general-purpose computer, and its owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing that, we call that tivoization.” – A Quick Guide to GPLv3 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation
Golden Rule for Startups and people with less funding for legal fees?
Imagine you are stuck in Jail being oppressed, and your lawyer is reading this contract discussing the nuances of how output and capacity to profit might be if-ed all while you sit in jail?
Same contract in 2024 that was released in 2007, maybe I am missing something
I am not trying to demonize lawyers, I am trying to say throughput has potential to be reduced in real ways not always considered, for lawyers and others in society. Throughput losses and time losses are real, might leave less prepared and enabled at critical times.
My Tech Blog 