It would be ok in most other cases, but not in this one. CC is incompatible with GPL. I can imagine that this license hell might bring you a headache.

Alien wrote:It would be ok in most other cases, but not in this one. CC is incompatible with GPL. I can imagine that this license hell might bring you a headache.

You're using the wrong tense, headache's right now. So what is all the other music licensed under? And what's the source of that considered?

All music in SVN is ogg'ed. Most of the songs are by Gerd (elysis) Raudenbusch and one is by Braden "meoblast" Walters. All are considered as GPL.

How do they get away with no source?
Can I not just use their method?

That is what I would want too.

Omg man, you're a god! Super song! (Stairs).
You have just made a new fan. I have to listen to all your songs you're willing to share ^_^ You have some mad talent there. I used to listen to the preview song for hours almost the entire day, now this is what I will be playing the next day after I get some sleep.

Seriously, super!

blkrbt wrote:edit: And another song I made for Nexuiz

YESYESYES! Some propah music for Nexuiz! Mid-air gibshots just became epic again!

Alien wrote:

divVerent wrote:If it is NOT applicable to sound, this whole thing is moot, as it would be entirely impossible to use ANY sound in a game that's under the GPL.

What? Somehow Space Trader is using id Tech 3 (GPL'ed) with proprietary art and music. CC is incompatible with GPL and used in wsw.

Just because others do it it doesn't mean it's legal.

Distributing code and data as separate packages sure would circumvent that, though.

Alien wrote:All music in SVN is ogg'ed. Most of the songs are by Gerd (elysis) Raudenbusch and one is by Braden "meoblast" Walters. All are considered as GPL.

Actually, yes. elysis was asked whether the music may be distributed under GPL. However, if he no longer has his project files, we might have to remove the music from Nexuiz, as there'd be no source then.

We simply don't know until someone actually asks elysis for the source.

And this is why I insist that NEW media should have source, to prevent such problems.

Alien wrote:Same goes to image editing. One could argue that he is very talented pixel artist and created that and that using paint equivalent. What would be the proof that he didn't? His post at forum claiming he has a psd file. Nobody would take it serious at any case.

As pixel-editing is common in case of image editing, and flattening the "project file" is even often required by the editing software, this would be fine.

Anyway, I could find Stallman's post where he mentions that it's better to use CC instead of GPL because GPL was meant neither for music nor art.

This is the very problem.

GPL is not meant for music.

However, the game package (as a whole) is, legally, a derived work of the code (as well as of the music).

One work however can be licensed just as a whole. I can't paint a picture and say "you may hang the picture in your bedroom, but the license agreement of the red paint used to make the picture requires you to hang it in the kitchen, so you have to scrape the paint off if you want to do hang it in your bedroom".

This is really a big problem. GPL requires linked, that is, directly referenced content (like the music) to be GPL too, EVEN if the license is totally unsuitable for that content. So basically, the big question is, what does the GPL _do_ to media like music? Sure, it requires source, but what IS that source?

The only way out would be distributing Nexuiz as two separate downloads, the "GPL stuff" in one file, and the "CC stuff" in a separate pk3 file. Even distributing them inside a single zip and automatically "put together" may be a license violation, only making them separate downloads would not be one.

In case of music, just make a PDF of the musical score of your work - the one you wrote down before you started inputting it into the computer. That is THE commonly accepted form of "source code" of music for many centuries, and it isn't even very large.

Another way out: save your music as, for example, .xm file. That format contains all the notes, instruments, etc., and even is noticably smaller than the .wav, often even smaller than the .ogg. And DarkPlaces can directly read it.

So it seems the solution is not to distribute nexuiz with darkplaces binary included. Something similar to cpma project: data in one place, engine in the other.

Even then, Nexuiz would have to go out of all the Linux distributions, as they do not consider CC a free license for many reasons.

Also, it would make downloading and installing Nexuiz much harder.

Also, all the existing media is licensed under GPL only, and not all authors can still be reached, so unless every single file gets replaced, there'd be no chance to change the license of that stuff to CC.

Can I get away with just distributing (and actually writing) the score then? I think that'll be the most logical method. XM file is absolutely out of the question.

Would a MIDI file be applicable (I can't actually read or write sheet music that well, so the score would have to be converted from MIDI anyway), which would contain all the composition data (the equivilant to what score would include) but none of the engineering or actual recorded data?

Also, how you say about flattening the layers into one big layer when image editing, in sound we have to do a similar process of mixing down to stereo wave file before mastering the track at the end, though, the project file is still kept.. sigh.

MIDI file would be a good representation of the score, if it is slightly edited to contain the correct key and time signatures (bar length, etc.) and doesn't just contain the bare notes - and of course everything divided into tracks according to the instruments being used. Maybe you can export to that and do some tiny edits in a MIDI editor.

As for the big project file data: whether it is needed as "source" or not is unclear. In doubt, just keep the files, and do not delete them. Maybe burn to a DVD.

Because:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

So if the files are just too large for you - it'd be perfectly fine if you simply keep that DVD, and make a copy and send it to anyone via snail mail if someone asks. They'd pay the medium and the shipping. Most likely nobody will ask anyway, especially if they have that MIDI and given that the legal situation of whether you are required to give out that data is very unclear.

If the license of the sound samples you used does NOT allow this kind of redistribution, you probably can't use it to make GPLed tunes. Please carefully read the license agreements that apply and verify that you are even allowed to redistribute the resulting tune freely. Note that the GPL explicitly allows commercial redistribution, so if the license requires any use to be non-commercial, it can't be used either. Basically, if you can do CC-Attribution (without ShareAlike and without NonCommercial), this part should be fine.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware wrote:Can I use the GPL for something other than software?

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

Sooo... I guess that if these songs are created using a tracker application of sorts then the native format for that application is the source.

...or am I missing the point?

The problem with this interpretation is that the tracker app isn't the ONLY app involved, but that a mastering process was done afterwards.

divVerent wrote:So if the files are just too large for you - it'd be perfectly fine if you simply keep that DVD, and make a copy and send it to anyone via snail mail if someone asks. They'd pay the medium and the shipping.

Aces! I'll stick the multi-tracks of both songs (and all future songs) onto DVDs and will snail mail copies of them on request.

As for the samples used in the song (strings and drum hit samples), I'm pretty sure they're fine to be used in commercial music, due to the softwares I'm using being an industry standard and plenty of commercial music using the same librarys.

Assuming this is everything, I declare the two posted songs under the GPL, and the multitracks are availble on request.

Hope that's all fine.

Thanks.

I doubt anyone ever needs them, I'll rather get loseless release.

Btw blkrbt: Maybe we know your name? Just in case I use these in any project I might do, then it would be good to credit you. I always want to give credit wherever possible in anything I do.
Also, do you have a website or something with your work? Would love to check it out then. Possibly even buy any record you might have done -_^

ai wrote:Btw blkrbt: Maybe we know your name? Just in case I use these in any project I might do, then it would be good to credit you. I always want to give credit wherever possible in anything I do.
Also, do you have a website or something with your work? Would love to check it out then. Possibly even buy any record you might have done -_^

I've never really released music before, although I've been producing it for 5years, but the (very) positive feedback I've gotten from these songs has inspired me to start up a website to show case my works (so thanks for the encouragement everyone). I'll PM you a link when I get it going.

divVerent wrote:Even then, Nexuiz would have to go out of all the Linux distributions, as they do not consider CC a free license for many reasons.

http://packages.debian.org/sid/sauerbraten-data ??? (and this is Debian)

If you want to produce new content with the sauerbraten engine, you have to be aware that the source code may be Open Source, but the game and the media it consist of have their individual licenses and copyrights. << http://www.sauerbraten.org/README.html

"Package: sauerbraten-data (0.0.20080620-1) [non-free]"

non-free means: NEVER on any official Debian DVDs. ONLY available via download, and ONLY when explicitly enabling the non-free repository.

Yes, my mistake, I've assumed debian is still following rms philosophy of having no non gpl'ed data except firmware binary blobs. Seems I was wrong.

So what ever happened to this thread? What's the conclusion? Could Nexuiz use this music? I'd hate for these to just get buried and never surfaced.

ai wrote:So what ever happened to this thread? What's the conclusion? Could Nexuiz use this music? I'd hate for these to just get buried and never surfaced.

Agreed...

If the music has license GPL(v2) I can include them to Nexuiz SVN
If you have source files that's good too.

Hi guys! I haven't played AT yet, just downloaded it... I have some background writing C code and other languages and I'm going to start looking at the source-code. Maybe I can help with dev.

****
With regards to the posted song:

I did not see a link for an updated song... so I don't know if you already fixed these things.

I downloaded the two at the top...

The background sound was pretty good, except for the flaws noted by others. The percussions sounded backwards. It starts with a light beat then hit louder or stronger beats.. I got the feeling from them as if I was tripping over objects and about to fall forward on my face.

However, you did mention that the ogg version was not equivalent to the others and that it was an early draft. Could you please post updates? If an mp3 turns out good, could you post an mp3 for checking out?

The 2nd song with no percussion was acceptable! It can use some polishing but it's good.

****

with regards to looping -- I believe what people were trying to say is not so much "how" to make a song loop in software as how to make a song end such that it blends with starting over.

****

with regards to copyright (copyleft?) -- Step out of the box of the copyright question.. it's a problem like any coding problem or anything other problem in life.. look out it from outside the problem not from inside. (inside has light restrictions...) What does a full commercial release of a game do for it's sound / music? If a popular group lends one of it's songs to a commercial game?

Try to extrapolate from that point of view a bit... It might be as simple as the author of the music extends copyright use "for use with app 2.x, but not for derivatives" (if that restriction were desired) or "for use with app 2.x and full derivatives where the GPL is still in effect for the entire product, it is immediately void otherwise." Keep in mind that if you said "but not for derivatives", that doesn't mean that when app 3.x comes out you can't say the same thing all over again "for app 3.x but not derivatives"... etc.. by 3.x we may not be interested in the song anymore anyway.

In general -- copyright is for creative products, patent is for engineered products. A core question one may ask about software is -- is it engineered or is it creative/written? This is hugely debatable ... I really believe software is creative / written and should NOT be patented. Microsoft and pretty much all of the major companies disagree. But their primary use of it is to keep competition out at key points in time. They couldn't care less who owns what as long as money pours into their pockets. (this is not an attack on them, just a recognition of the situation)

Anyway.. I'm no expert at copyrights.. Just trying to jog up another perspective.

Rog wrote:with regards to copyright (copyleft?) -- Step out of the box of the copyright question.. it's a problem like any coding problem or anything other problem in life.. look out it from outside the problem not from inside. (inside has light restrictions...) What does a full commercial release of a game do for it's sound / music? If a popular group lends one of it's songs to a commercial game?

Try to extrapolate from that point of view a bit... It might be as simple as the author of the music extends copyright use "for use with app 2.x, but not for derivatives" (if that restriction were desired) or "for use with app 2.x and full derivatives where the GPL is still in effect for the entire product, it is immediately void otherwise." Keep in mind that if you said "but not for derivatives", that doesn't mean that when app 3.x comes out you can't say the same thing all over again "for app 3.x but not derivatives"... etc.. by 3.x we may not be interested in the song anymore anyway.

Although it makes sense, exactly that is not even possible for Nexuiz. Nexuiz is under the GPL 2, so any content within it has to be under the GPL 2 too. No way to change that.

And the GPL explicitly allows others to take the stuff without asking - as long as the new project is still under the GPL, of course. So a "not for derivatives" style license is simply not possible for Nexuiz.

So yes, media for free software also needs a license that is much more free than media for commercial software. Commercial software does NOT allow others to take their stuff without asking.

So if, blkrbt released these under GPL v2 could they be included in Nexuiz or do you need some kind of source files? If yes, what kind of source files. I know this has been debated and many different opinions. Would a lossless format work (.wav or whatever other there are)?
Does Tenshihans sounds have source included? If so, what kind of source is that, then blkrbt can just make it the same way. If not, then blkrbt shouldn't be the only one forced to release source, then Tenshihans sounds would need to be removed as well. All that is need is to prove that these do in fact belong to blkrbt (that he made these).

Note: No hard feelings about Tenshihan, I love his sounds and do not wish for them to be removed. Just trying to prove a point here. If you Tenshihan happen read this: 'You're great '

Tenshihan provided source on request in the past, so in case sounds need source, that'd be fine.

As for the music by blkrbt - well, IMHO a MIDI file that contains key and time signatures (that is, one that gets a legible score and can be easily printed out) and every single note is perfectly fine. Also, as the file is much smaller than the ogg file, it should really be included in some way (while on the other hand, tenshihan's source sound files are quite large, so "source on request" makes sense there). Of course, if he has the MIDI file, he can also email it out on request.

However, one thing to keep in mind: read the licenses of the audio samples that have been used. Tenshihan made entirely his own samples (and proved it in the leileilol discussion), so these are safe. Commercial vendors of sample collections however do NOT allow distributing them - or works using them - under a license that allows others to request source. So such collections can't be used.

Whether the project file including all the samples is required as source or whether the MIDI suffices is not known until now, no court has decided it yet. Ideally, I think, AT should get the MIDI, and provide it to people asking for source. In case it becomes the usual legal opinion that the project file and the samples are required, blkrbt should keep these at home. It'd be perfectly fine if he burns them to a DVD and puts it in a safe place (so he can make copies of it on request).

In my opinion, the sounds require no "source" at all, as they are not "generated" from anything, while music does have some notion of source code - namely, the one generally accepted by musicians. The musical score. Notes and stuff. But this is not necessarily how a court would rule, so one should play as safe as possible.