For decades now there's been a known definition of what it means for a piece of computer software to be free as in freedom, what makes a piece of free software and what doesn't. People would also like for other cultural works like music, but other stuff too, to be free as in freedom, but it's not exactly clear what freedom means in this case. We have Creative Commons, I suppose.
One definition (finalised today) of 'free cultural work' coming from folk in the free software movement and wikipedia folks is this:
* Anybody is allowed to use and perform the work
* Anybody is allowed to study the work and apply the information gained from this study
* Anybody is allowed to redistribute copies. This means that if you give or sell me a CD of your music, I can make 10,000 copies and give them away for free, or even sell them, or put them on the Internet, if I so please
* Anybody is allowed to distribute derivative works. I can take your music, or whatever, and make a new work based on it, and give or sell that to as many people as I want
Is this of relevance to Forest records? What is our licensing policy? Perhaps we should pick one of the existing 'free cultural works' licenses and apply it to all forest records?
It would be helpful I think for forest records as a community or culture or arts organisation if all the works were distributed using an accepted legal definition of 'free cultural work.'