The general idea for the copies, etc is multiple:
1) The original author should have complete control over the original work of art, including deleting it if he or she so chooses. This could be where people differ in opinion and the reason for alternative implementations?
Ultimately, if the author chooses not to share the work with anyone else, he or she will keep all copies of it and only demonstrate it to others as a performance. No one else will be able to duplicate it exactly, except through tedious reverse engineering.
2) If the author does share, then it is an implicit agreement that others may use this work as a base for their own creations or modifications.
3) Recipients of copies may not modify the original work, but may create a derivative of it over which they have full rights and control. The author of the original work is automatically credited.
Two other big reasons for allowing the author to change all copies of the original is document revision control and inventory and database storage.
If each music score is an individual and unique item, it requires that data to be repeated multiple times in the backend database. If we assume Ryzom explodes in popularity, that sort of implementation does not scale well at all. It also will not stack, which seems to be something desired when items are the same (see other idea threads).
If a composer is creating a work for an ensemble, there will be stages of updating, distributing changes, and performing. Having multiple "links" to the one original document ensures that the changes propagate instantly to the recipients, streamlining the distribution step.
1) The original author should have complete control over the original work of art, including deleting it if he or she so chooses. This could be where people differ in opinion and the reason for alternative implementations?
Ultimately, if the author chooses not to share the work with anyone else, he or she will keep all copies of it and only demonstrate it to others as a performance. No one else will be able to duplicate it exactly, except through tedious reverse engineering.
2) If the author does share, then it is an implicit agreement that others may use this work as a base for their own creations or modifications.
3) Recipients of copies may not modify the original work, but may create a derivative of it over which they have full rights and control. The author of the original work is automatically credited.
Two other big reasons for allowing the author to change all copies of the original is document revision control and inventory and database storage.
If each music score is an individual and unique item, it requires that data to be repeated multiple times in the backend database. If we assume Ryzom explodes in popularity, that sort of implementation does not scale well at all. It also will not stack, which seems to be something desired when items are the same (see other idea threads).
If a composer is creating a work for an ensemble, there will be stages of updating, distributing changes, and performing. Having multiple "links" to the one original document ensures that the changes propagate instantly to the recipients, streamlining the distribution step.