Just so it’s clear to everyone, Scorico will be totally unaffiliated with Steinberg, and I’m not suggesting Dorico become free. Respectfully, I don’t think that’s a good idea. And Daniel has already said that they’d rather not get into file sharing and hosting.
This is just a site for enthusiastic users to share resources.
While this sounds like an interesting idea, my own wish is that CPDL or IMSLP would accept Dorico files natively. That would keep different file formats collectively in one or two places that are commonly searched by musicians.
The CC licenses restrict down the line, but for it to be completely free to adapt and use, I would strongly suggest the CC license with CC and BY. This is the simplest and least restrictive, since you are trying to promote the sharing of these materials rather than host an official site of engraved score for purchase or otherwise.
This is the one I’m planning to use: Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0
Hi all, I was planning on contributing my instruments.xml file and the other 2 files needed to add custom instruments to Dorico. I have a bunch of useful things like a 0-line staff, 1-line non percussion staff, a non percussion drum kit, a bunch of other percussion instruments, a few Asian instruments I’ve had commissions to write for, etc.
Does anyone have any instrument requests you’d like to have added to Dorico?
My wish would be that MusicXML would mature to the point that this would become an acceptable file format for IMSLP and other similar sites. But robust interoperability works against the goal of protecting intellectual property. That will be a big barrier.
I hope for this, too, but it could indeed be a “both/and” situation.
For long-term archival purposes (like IMSLP) it seems weird that one would use a non-open format.
This is actually an ongoing issue in digital preservation: how to guarantee that files can be opened in the future etc. (even pdfs have problems).
Generically I agree, but people who would otherwise share dorico files would still be sharing PDFs too. They wouldn’t post a dorico file to the exclusion of the Pdf version which is the ‘universal standard’ for this type of sharing. As far as I’m concerned, the more formats floating around, the better (and the better your odds that one of your various software programs could open one of the formats.)
Furthermore, there are other obscure formats on these sites, and lots of finale files. Also, XML would be useful too (not for Dan’s proposed project, but for the other sites).
(My bad. That was supposed to be a very stupid joke and should be rightfully ignored.)
I didn’t get it! 
@DanKreider that version of the CC licence allows users to
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Are you sure users will be happy to have others potentially exploit their work commercially? [I am very far from being a lawyer or having expert knowledge of copyright, but I won’t be putting my work under such a licence.]
There should be a non-commercial variant.
As I see it, it’s a library for resources (including scores), where the copyright holders/uploaders are able to get donations. This is non-commercial use, and all derived work should also be obliged to have the same Creative Commons license as the original.
I think we are starting to miss the point. The spirit (as I understand it) is to openly share Dorico projects for educational and learning - tips and tricks sort of thing.
I don’t believe it is meant for posting original works which you may want to exploit and protect via copyright. Or as another revenue stream for your publishing. Donations are a nice gesture of thanks. If we choose to post a project, it should be done openly and without restrictions - at least to my mind.
I wonder if we haven’t gotten so caught up in protecting and locking down our “property” that we miss out on opportunities to share and be helpful, and have our work discovered by new listeners.
Again, I repeat:
If you would share it on CPDL or IMSLP (or musescore.com), you could share it here (in addition to a few other things like excerpts, and educational exercises, etc.).
If you wouldn’t share your works on those sites, don’t share them on scorico.
Why are people making this so complicated? It’s really not.
———
As for CC licenses, I still think the more open version should be the default, but I can understand the value to offering a second option that limits commercialization.
But yet again I repeat: if you don’t want people to be using the resources you’re posting, don’t post them.
The problem with the non-commercial license is that it creates a potentially problematic restriction for the user. He or she might feel the need to keep Scorico downloads segregated from their own professional work, otherwise they’d risk violating the terms of the license.
That seems to be a bit of a burden, as if to say, “You can download this resource, but you’d better watch it.”
Of course I’m willing to do whichever license gets the most buy-in from contributors and visitors (I suppose weighted towards contributors, so the site grows).
I’d appreciate hearing from more potential contributors on which they think would be best.
Not only that, but people would need to mark their preferred CC license in the metadata of the file, otherwise you’d lose track.
(Adding proper copyright data in the info pane within dorico should be the default habit of everyone anyway, but I’m sure for some people they never use it, as useful as it is.)
I’m careful what fonts I download, because trying to keep track of their various licenses is a hassle too.