License for release songs

Hey, people. Interesting how in the entire history of the mailing list,
this hasn't been brought up (with a (sensible) reply). Well, better late 
than never. Although I have to disclose that neither am I a lawyer or 
someone who has been involved with OpenBSD in any capacity. I am just 
stating my opinion for sake of.

I have failed to find a license header on lyrics.html, pages about the FTP 
shares or anywhere else that would imply the release songs are covered 
under the license. This is equivalent to an all rights reserved, but may 
lead people to believe it's BSD 2/3 clause given it's "included with the 
OS" (not really), regardless of intention. While it's unlikely somebody 
will be exercising copyright over them, it limits usage across corporate 
contexts and may lead to people breaking terms of their hosting providers 
and such unknowingly.

Possible solutions:  
- Explicitly add "all rights reserved" to lyrics.html (may upset someone)
- Add a README file to /songs on FTP and a notice on lyrics.html stating 
	the songs are part of BSD 2 clause licensed software
- Add a LICENSE file to /songs on FTP and a notice on lyrics.html
- Add licenses where applicable to individuals songs

Now, if none of the artists of a specific song had their rights 
transferred or waived (even informally), this would need the headache of
asking one of them to say "I hereby release...". And to know to do that in 
the first place involves cross referencing emails.

Also, the BSD 2 clause license is a software license. It is perfectly fit 
to distribute assets as part of software, but if it's stated a song on 
it's own is "under BSD 2 clause", it won't be clear if a .ogg counts as 
"binary form". "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above 
copyright notice" how? Add a robotic voice to the end of each song? The 
CC-BY licenses would be incompatible with BSD due to attribution to 
authors (despite lots of jurisdictions requiring such attribution 
regardless due to unwaivable moral rights). 

Best license I can think of is the EXPAT/"MIT" but s/software/work/:

---
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a 
copy of this work and associated documentation files (the "Work"), to deal 
in the work without restriction, including without limitation the rights 
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell 
copies of the work, and to permit persons to whom the work is furnished to 
do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in 
all copies or substantial portions of the work.

THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR 
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, 
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL 
THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER 
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING 
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS 
IN THE WORK.
---

Although the obvious problem with that is that the whole thing must now be 
included under funny internet videos and whatnot, since it's new and 
doesn't have a name most would recognize or look up online (like "EXPAT"). 
So maybe even public domain equivalent at this point..? If anyone has 
better suggestions, let me know.

Although what should be considered is what the artists themselves want. 
Maybe they want "all rights reserved, enforced only case by case"? We 
don't know. Maybe best to ask...

This very email is hereby released under that license. That's it for my 
workarounds of capitalism.