Ambient Music

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

I've been working on an ambient music album. Seeing as how I don't have much use for it, I'm releasing it here. I hope to see it show up in some kind of open source work. It's not complete at the moment, but it's got 5 tracks and I'll add some more when I've got the time.

I make absolutely no money whatsoever from these downloads.

Download from:
Megaupload

Edit: Changed formats to 500KBPS OGG Vorbis (from 320KBPS MP3), fixed license.

 

[Tempel]

Nice stuff. I could see myself using this somewhere, particularly the first track. I like the last track too, but it seems more depressing. Which could be useful somewhere, but is probably harder to find.

Only complaint: the noncommercial requirement is incompatible with the free software definition. I don't know if that affects whether they can be used in open source games, but it does mean that the game could not be accepted into strict repositories, like the Debian one. I think that the sharealike requirement tends to provide sufficient protection against serious commercial exploitation, so I release all my stuff without the NC. Also, if you drop NC, it could be uploaded to OpenGameArt and hopefully attract more attention.

Also, your License.txt should probably include the URL of the CC license you're using, just to make it clear. As is, it doesn't even say that it's supposed to be a CC license.

 

[Tom`]

Only complaint: the noncommercial requirement is incompatible with the free software definition. I don't know if that affects whether they can be used in open source games, but it does mean that the game could not be accepted into strict repositories, like the Debian one. I think that the sharealike requirement tends to provide sufficient protection against serious commercial exploitation, so I release all my stuff without the NC. Also, if you drop NC, it could be uploaded to OpenGameArt and hopefully attract more attention.

Also, your License.txt should probably include the URL of the CC license you're using, just to make it clear. As is, it doesn't even say that it's supposed to be a CC license.

I don't think this should be an issue; there are plenty of GPL games that require non-free data files (the id games - Doom, Quake, etc. being perhaps the most well-known). Most distributions maintain a separate repo for non-free components that are nevertheless freely redistributable.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

Nice stuff. I could see myself using this somewhere, particularly the first track. I like the last track too, but it seems more depressing. Which could be useful somewhere, but is probably harder to find.

Only complaint: the noncommercial requirement is incompatible with the free software definition. I don't know if that affects whether they can be used in open source games, but it does mean that the game could not be accepted into strict repositories, like the Debian one. I think that the sharealike requirement tends to provide sufficient protection against serious commercial exploitation, so I release all my stuff without the NC. Also, if you drop NC, it could be uploaded to OpenGameArt and hopefully attract more attention.

Also, your License.txt should probably include the URL of the CC license you're using, just to make it clear. As is, it doesn't even say that it's supposed to be a CC license.

Would a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License be 100% compatible with the GPL?

 

[Tom`]

Would a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License be 100% compatible with the GPL?

I am not any sort of lawyer, but it looks like it might be incompatible due to the following section:

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3( B) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3( B) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.

The GPL doesn't allow such a restriction (of course, it was not designed with artistic works in mind).
I wouldn't worry about being 100% GPL-compatible, since it'll probably be hard to find a non-software license that is. It shouldn't inhibit distribution, in any case; as long as it is made clear that the assets are CC-BY-SA 3.0-licensed, I don't think there would be any issues.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

That seems to mean that if someone were to take my original work, modify it in some way, and then redistribute it AS an original work I MYSELF produced. I believe the GPL has that restriction as well if I'm not mistaken. I think I'll stick with that license.

 

[Tom`]

That seems to mean that if someone were to take my original work, modify it in some way, and then redistribute it AS an original work I MYSELF produced. I believe the GPL has that restriction as well if I'm not mistaken. I think I'll stick with that license.

Well, yeah, you can't misrepresent yourself as the author of something you didn't write, but that's covered elsewhere - I think this is saying that even if you state that it's been modified, you can't do anything that might "be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."

It shouldn't be a problem, though.

 

[Tempel]

From what I've gathered, no CC license (except CC0) is compatible with the GPL; that is, derivative works can't be relicensed under the GPL. But that doesn't matter since it's generally accepted that game code and game assets can be under different licenses.

It's not really a big deal! Under the current license, it can be used in GPL'd games. It's just that, if you switch to BY-SA, it can spread a little further (like to OpenGameArt, as I mentioned before) while not giving away too many additional rights (the obviously biased FSF has a good writeup on it).

But it's really up to you! I would rather this conversation change back to the music.

Fake edit: Oh, you've already changed it! Thanks, and sorry for my being bothersome about it.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

From what I've gathered, no CC license (except CC0) is compatible with the GPL; that is, derivative works can't be relicensed under the GPL. But that doesn't matter since it's generally accepted that game code and game assets can be under different licenses.

It's not really a big deal! Under the current license, it can be used in GPL'd games. It's just that, if you switch to BY-SA, it can spread a little further (like to OpenGameArt, as I mentioned before) while not giving away too many additional rights (the obviously biased FSF has a good writeup on it).

But it's really up to you! I would rather this conversation change back to the music.

Fake edit: Oh, you've already changed it! Thanks, and sorry for my being bothersome about it.

Well it's a good thing you made a comment on the license, as I'd like it to be as open as possible without some major corporate enterprise profiting from my work.

 

[Spirit]

The format is absolute overkill. Either provide FLAC (which is lossless ans thus people could convert to their target format/bitrate with no problems) or use something like MP3 V0 or Vorbis at Q5-7.

 

[WizardStan]

That seems to mean that if someone were to take my original work, modify it in some way, and then redistribute it AS an original work I MYSELF produced. I believe the GPL has that restriction as well if I'm not mistaken. I think I'll stick with that license.

Someone can take a GPLed work, modify it, and release it as their work, yes. The restriction being that the modifier needs to acknowledge the original work. Anyone who cares about things being GPL will know where to look. Those that don't actually care about the GPL and just want to play some games or listen to some music (let's be serious here, that's almost everybody) will not bother or may not even know where to look for the acknowledgment, and will just assume that the someone releasing the modified version is the original author.
I am not especially fond of the GPL sometimes.

 

[mindlord]

The GPL does not care if the assets and the code use two different licenses. If that were the case we could not buy GPL'd games that have commercial assets anywhere. If you're really hung up on mixing licenses just distribute the music pack separately. You are totally allowed to release source code under GPL with game music under CC and totally retaining copyright on graphics assets or any combination of licenses.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

The format is absolute overkill. Either provide FLAC (which is lossless ans thus people could convert to their target format/bitrate with no problems) or use something like MP3 V0 or Vorbis at Q5-7.

Well, it IS variable bitrate....

 

[CPUnltd]

glad I'm watching this convo... this is good stuff that I never really looked into, but should do so if I ever open my own media production company...

 

[Aninhumer]

Well, it IS variable bitrate....

I doubt Vorbis would output at 500kb/s unless you requested a pretty high quality setting.
320kb/s MP3 is already considered transparent, and Vorbis is a better codec, so 500kb/s is complete overkill.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

Eh, Overkill or not, there's always transcoding.

 

[Tom`]

Eh, Overkill or not, there's always transcoding.

Regardless of bitrate, transcoding a lossy file will always result in a bigger quality loss.

500 Kbps corresponds to q10, the highest quality setting for Vorbis. FLAC isn't a lot bigger than this (around 700 Kbps for most files, IIRC), so there's no major advantage IMO to using q10 here - the best thing to do would probably be to offer both FLAC and, say, Vorbis q6, or just FLAC if you want to maintain a single set of files.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

Eh, Overkill or not, there's always transcoding.

Regardless of bitrate, transcoding a lossy file will always result in a bigger quality loss.

500 Kbps corresponds to q10, the highest quality setting for Vorbis. FLAC isn't a lot bigger than this (around 700 Kbps for most files, IIRC), so there's no major advantage IMO to using q10 here - the best thing to do would probably be to offer both FLAC and, say, Vorbis q6, or just FLAC if you want to maintain a single set of files.

Well, once it's done I'll repackage it as FLAC, 128KBPS mp3, and Q5 OGG

 

[CPUnltd]

on the plus side, lowering the bitrate to whatever you want for your purposes IS doable... overkill or not...

 

[atomicthumbs]

I like it; some of it reminds me of Loscil, and other bits, early Stars of the Lid.