Unauthorized use of my music.

[leileilol]

But if the music is to be distributed in a GPL.like fashion, there cannot be a "source" for it,

if it's a tracker module, you can

[tChr]

But if the music is to be distributed in a GPL.like fashion, there cannot be a "source" for it,

if it's a tracker module, you can

No it cant. cuase the tracker module still contains binary data.

If its a midi, that is hardware dependent.

Trying to apply GPL to non-executable program content is just stupid.

[divVerent]

But one HAS to apply it to such data because otherwise a game can't use it.

That is due to the infectious nature of the GPL... and yes, it would be good if the GPL had an exception that allows to distribute mere "data" under another license.

"No it cant. cuase the tracker module still contains binary data."

No, not really. It contains the "notes" and the "samples". The samples just ARE their own "source", just like the string "hello world" is its own source.

In any case - code is code, and artwork is artwork. And it is rude to take artwork without asking. If it was licensed under the terms of the GPL, the artist can't prevent you from using his work - but he STILL deserves that you ask so he knows who is using it. That's just an unwritten law.

Also, artists may request that you remove their name if you edited their works. The GPL actually would not allow you to do that - but if you changed too much, the artist will request that of you and basically grant you a new license that allows you to leave out his name.

To sort out such cases, the only sensible thing is to ask. Even if he writes on his website that anyone can use it for whatever he wants - ASK FIRST. If you do not do that, the result will be that artists won't give these freedoms any more to ANYONE. The thing is - if code is under the GPL, the author gets something back if you use his code. Bugfixes, improvements, whatever. But if music is under the GPL, there is no benefit at all to the author, but actually one can - fully legally - do much harm to the author, by editing the works in a bad way for example! This is the main reason why the GPL is a bad license for music - it allows people to damage the reputation of the composer, but he gets nothing back in exchange for that risk. Now if people actually abuse the rights given by the GPL, the only consequence is that these rights won't be given any more.

[divVerent]

No it cant. cuase the tracker module still contains binary data.

If its a midi, that is hardware dependent.

I suppose musicians agree that the score (printed or not) IS the "source code" of the music. Improvisations of course have no such "source", just like hand typed machine code has no "source".

And a tracker file is samples + score, a MIDI is basically the score.

[tChr]

No, not really. It contains the "notes" and the "samples". The samples just ARE their own "source", just like the string "hello world" is its own source.

Yes.. exactly.. and the samples of the final object is also its own source. Therefor talking about a source for any kind of finished data, except its own source data is redundant.

have you considered this:
The GPL requires that the source should be available on Paper if requested.. (is that removed in GPL2? ) how do you intend to to that with a piece of music

Another thing: what about video? Do you require the creator to keep all his/her original unedited clips and project files in case the source is requested.

As you said yourself. For it to be possible to apply GPL-like thinking to data, you have to accept the data as its own source. Or rather, the binary data as the source, and the alalogue output (wavelenghts of light, vibrations in air density (picture and sound)) as the content. This makes the (stupid) idea of any kind of "source" for binary content (other than machine executable) unnecessary.

[penguin]

ZhayTee: Is your music GPL? If you have released it as GPL then it is indeed GPL and your rights are not being violated. Since Adonthell is GPL and has all it's files under that license and you knowingly contributed to that project under that license then that song is GPL aswell. The tower map is also GPL and can legally use your music if your song is GPL. If you have released a song under GPL then you cannot recind or stop others from using the song under the terms and conditions of the GPL.

Many open source sites list your music as GPL. There is no claim in Adonthell that your music is not GPL.

Furthermore GPLd music helps the opensource community. Restricted music does nto help the opensource community, it hinders it instead if it is included in a opensource game.

So. When you contributed to Adonthell, a GPL licensed program and media package, did you tell them that your songs were not GPL?

Secondly: (and more importantly): do you wish to help the opensource community (by clarifing that the songs of adonthell are GPL) or harm it by creating a license dispute (GPL cannot be recinded once given).

Please clarify. You have good music, but when giving it to an open source project it needs to be free. Unfree music does not help.

The source for most music is easy: midis. Or wavs if recorded piece.

Please clarify your position. If your music is not GPL (and legally you cannot recind the license if it was given as gpl to adonthell) then Adonthell will be removed from Debian and most other Linux distributions.

And for what?

Please consider carefully.
Your music is of most help free.

[divVerent]

The source for most music is easy: midis. Or wavs if recorded piece.

WAVs are IMHO not necessary. I can very well imagine recording devices that encode directly as MP3, or even record as MP3. The frequency analysis can be done at a very early stage, even using analogue electronics...

[tChr]

The source for most music is easy: midis. Or wavs if recorded piece.

WAVs are IMHO not necessary. I can very well imagine recording devices that encode directly as MP3, or even record as MP3. The frequency analysis can be done at a very early stage, even using analogue electronics...

That doesnt make sense, hovever, recording directly as ogg would make sens, as an ogg some times will have more accurate (vector) representations of sound than a sample based thing such as PCM wav.


Amd please stop that nosense about waht is source for music. The music is its ouwn source, if there is such a thing as a source for it. Just as artwork (pictures) and videos are their own "sources".

[penguin]

So is the song gpl, not gpl?
The fact that it was in adonthell (which is all licenced under GPL), and he contributed to it, and there is no disclaimer otherwise (which supports that he did not put diffrent terms or establish diffrent terms with the other adonthell developers) seems to point to it being GPL. Otherwise we have to make all music a graphic artists sign a legal document before contributing to opensource projects so that the license won't be "oops recinded" (not legally possible... but it becomes he said she said) before committing something to CVS.

I make music too. I explicitly GPL it. Music, maps, and code are not diffrent really. We need media freedom as much as we need code freedom.

[esteel]

Well by the style of writing and the other posts.. I assume penguin IS mikeusa so you should use your chance to settle this with the music author before one of the admins does ban you again.
How many times have you been banned now? 6? 7? Even a complete idiot would have noticed by now that mikeusa is just not welcome here.. I guess someone here really likes it to get kicked and banned and all that just because of stupid ideas and spreading bullshit and ignorance.. After wondering how that fits in with being pro-GPL and talking about how valuable freedome is one must also wonder what a hard and sad live mikeusa must have. Well i guess pity would be in vain.. so just get lost mike and try to get a life.. Take that as a kinda tip.