Unauthorized use of my music.

[torus]

MikeeUSA's IP isnt banned? I guess it's a twisted sort of compliment that he likes it here so much, if infact it is him.

[esteel]

He is using the tor network to stay super-secret IP banning will not really work unless you want to ban all end-nodes. But as you see its quite easy to find him even without that

[Psychcf]

eh I wish tor worked behind my school's firewall...

[penguin]

Getting back to the point.
Is the music GPL or not GPL?
If he contributed it to Adonthell, didn't demand a diffrent license he can't now go and recind the GPL license (contract based on unilateral mistake is enforcable).

This really sucks, why do artists "donate" to opensource projects and then turn around and say "well I didn't mean to put it under the license of the rest of the project... you should have knew that".

Should we call up the FSF and ask them?

[esteel]

Who said it was donated as GPL music? From what i read here it sounds more like he wanted to donate it to Adonthell under some other license and this seems to have just gotten done wrong.. like forgetting to mention the special license for the music.

But even ignoring this.. mikeusa was asked by the copyright holder of the music to withdraw it from this map. So unless mikeusa wants to prove he is an asshole he would just honor that request..

[divVerent]

Exactly. The license is the legal part - but the artist should still have the last word. Anything else would be disrespectful - and will eventually result in the artist not providing these freedoms again.

[penguin]

If the Artist has freed the music then he does not have the last word as the music is no longer encumbered (this is the whole point of opensource/freeness). Nor does anyone else have the right to recind the music or lock it up in proprietary licneses (this is what the GPL prevents).

I would not remove the song from the tower map, it goes well with it and if it is indeed GPL then that should stay. Someone would also have to find another song for the map that fits and repackage the pk3.

If an artist (and I myself am one) does not want his work to be free then he should stay a long way away from open/free products. To put a propriatary item into an opensource project jepordizes that project and is a Trojan Horse for the free project. It is not "helping" the project.

If the artist donated the music to the GPL Adonthell project and forgot to mention his intent to have it put under another license that still does not change the legal fact that he has, by his actions, GPLd it. Unilateral mistake does not reduce the force of a contract (and that is what a license is).

His music is also in 'The Battle for Wesnoth'. I will be contacting Debian to have Adonthell and Westnoth removed from the distribution because of this submarine change-my-mind licensing. I will also be contacting the FSF for legal advice.

I like the song, it was indicated as GPL. Then suddently the artist changes his mind.
This is dispicable submarine topedoing of all free software, if an artist can change his mind (or her mind) then we're all screwed.

We should all start practicing on our midi keyboards (hooked up to our linux boxes using Rosegarden (a great Free/Opensource Midi sequencer).

ZhayTee: Your music will continue to be used under the terms of the GPL unless you show that it was never GPLd and you explicitly told the adonthell team that you were not contributing open music. Sorry, it's just too good to not use if it is GPL.

Yes maybe this might stop artists form "fake contributing" to free software projects but that is all the well: we cannot have those who do not understand our movement contributing to it and then deciding they want to still control their contribution afterwards.

Also we should contact the other Adonthell developers to see their side of this debacle.

"Giving" music to open project non-freely is no gift at all. It's a 'gift from the greeks' .

[divVerent]

If the Artist has freed the music then he does not have the last word as the music is no longer encumbered (this is the whole point of opensource/freeness). Nor does anyone else have the right to recind the music or lock it up in proprietary licneses (this is what the GPL prevents).

You did not see my point. My point that it may be LEGAL that you use his music even when he requests you not to, but not LEGITIMATE.

I would not remove the song from the tower map, it goes well with it and if it is indeed GPL then that should stay. Someone would also have to find another song for the map that fits and repackage the pk3.

And exactly this behaviour of you is what causes artists to not WANT to put content under the GPL. Which, in the end result, brought Nexuiz to the problem it has - not many people make player models for it. Since the release of 1.5 (or maybe even 1.0), we now got our FIRST extra player model. It is hard to find artists that make content under these conditions... especially if people like you do not follow basic principles of politeness.

If an artist (and I myself am one) does not want his work to be free then he should stay a long way away from open/free products.

If free content means to deal with rude people like you, nobody wants to make free content. Especially in your case. Believe me - if we could revoke your license to play and distribute Nexuiz, we would have done so after all you've done - after all, you are opposing human rights, that is, basic rights of freedom, and thus don't deserve the right to use free (as in speech) software.

His music is also in 'The Battle for Wesnoth'. I will be contacting Debian to have Adonthell and Westnoth removed from the distribution because of this submarine change-my-mind licensing. I will also be contacting the FSF for legal advice.

He can't sue you, but he won't contribute to any free project again thanks to you.

Basic politeness requires you to ask the author when you want to use his works and to not use it when he says no, EVEN if you would legally be entitled to anyway. But if the author did license it under a free license, he can't say no - so he wouldn't and you can even rely on him saying yes when you ask. Still, you HAVE to ask - otherwise it's rude and impolite. Now if you tried to contact him and got no reply in some days, you can use the work anyway because the license lets you - you have done your part, you tried to contact him, even though you failed. Does not matter. But please be polite to artists who are taking the risk of providing content under a free license.

Otherwise you'll drive them away, just like you've maybe already done to ZhayTee. You may just have damaged all projects that potentially could have used ZhayTee's music.

[:)]

If the Artist has freed the music then he does not have the last word as the music is no longer encumbered (this is the whole point of opensource/freeness). Nor does anyone else have the right to recind the music or lock it up in proprietary licneses (this is what the GPL prevents).

First, a spelling lesson: "rescind" and "licenses"
While something licensed under the GPL may indeed be legally included in another thing which is also licensed under the GPL, a person re-using a work would do well to at least notify the original author. The GPL is not about anti-socially mashing up everything else under the same license.
As for "rescinding", original authors are free to relicense their work.

Someone would also have to find another song for the map that fits and repackage the pk3.

"Someone"? No one has any interest in your maps.

If an artist (and I myself am one) does not want his work to be free then he should stay a long way away from open/free products. To put a propriatary item into an opensource project jepordizes that project and is a Trojan Horse for the free project. It is not "helping" the project.

"proprietary" and "jeopardizes"
As noted in this thread, the GPL is an uncommon license for artwork, particularly music. Which is why some games with code licensed under the GPL use a separate license for their media.
The artist has stated that he does indeed want his music to be free, but he also wants more control over it than the GPL allows, which can be solved by relicensing the music.

If the artist donated the music to the GPL Adonthell project and forgot to mention his intent to have it put under another license that still does not change the legal fact that he has, by his actions, GPLd it. Unilateral mistake does not reduce the force of a contract (and that is what a license is).

The problem is, the world is not made up of people like you. Most people are reasonable and capable of resolving differences through communication and compromise.

His music is also in 'The Battle for Wesnoth'. I will be contacting Debian to have Adonthell and Westnoth removed from the distribution because of this submarine change-my-mind licensing. I will also be contacting the FSF for legal advice.

Just calm down.

I like the song, it was indicated as GPL. Then suddently the artist changes his mind.
This is dispicable submarine topedoing of all free software, if an artist can change his mind (or her mind) then we're all screwed.

First, yes, artists can change their mind. The point, though, is that the artist did not change his mind, he never intended his song to be released under the GPL it seems.

ZhayTee: Your music will continue to be used under the terms of the GPL unless you show that it was never GPLd and you explicitly told the adonthell team that you were not contributing open music. Sorry, it's just too good to not use if it is GPL.

He's been quite polite in expressing his wishes, there's no need to threaten to Das Tower his music.

Yes maybe this might stop artists form "fake contributing" to free software projects but that is all the well: we cannot have those who do not understand our movement contributing to it and then deciding they want to still control their contribution afterwards.

Also we should contact the other Adonthell developers to see their side of this debacle.

"Giving" music to open project non-freely is no gift at all. It's a 'gift from the greeks' .

Instead of scaring away contributors, we need to clarify license terms and make sure the artists explicitly license their works.

[divVerent]

First, a spelling lesson: "rescind" and "licenses"

Don't correct his spelling. As a native speaker, he couldn't care less