Lmms: Song examples on LMMS

[badosu]

Let's use this issue as a placeholder for questions and planning on how we should be able to have songs bundled with LMMS and even if we should have.

[Sti2nd]

It could be done as now, pull request by the artist himself or on behalf of others, and then approved by at least three uninvolved persons.

Many have suggested competitions for it too, but I guess the price is somewhat less attractive if you cannot self promote in all text fields you can find? :fish: :cat: What do you think?

[Spekular]

If anyone knows if it's possible to add spoiler tags or otherwise compress text please let me know.

I’d like to propose multiple licenses.

CC0:

I think CC0 is perfectly suited to samples. Crediting every person who made a sample you use would quickly get out of hand. CC0 would also be suited to presets, but I’m not sure they have any license at the moment? I don’t think it’s an absurd idea that they could/would though.

Project files as CC0, well. From a user perspective CC0 is the best possible scenario for anything. They can use it however they like with no legal issues, sweet! As an artist though (This is hypothetical, as in _if_ I were an artist), I wouldn’t want to give away any serious work. I’m not saying it’s not possible to get CC0 projects, and it’s great if we have them, but maybe not only CC0? I personally would only release as CC0 if I decided on it from the start, as in, ”I’m gonna make a song for other people to use”.

CC-BY:

Any CC-BY samples would have to be darn nice. I can see sample packs or other kind of “luxury” samples requiring attribution though, maybe. If presets had licenses I think CC-BY would work well here. The ones we have now are good and should obviously be CC0/no license, but once again “preset packs”/”luxury” presets or some artist’s signature sound hand crafted presets could be CC-BY perhaps.

CC-BY is also where I think a project file’s natural license would be if it’s open. It makes sense to give attribution if you remix or borrow from someone else’s project, I’d consider it courtesy. If maybe Pitbull would do this people wouldn’t think he created the melody in Sugar (Blue (Da Ba Dee)) or the vocal in Good Feeling (Came out suspiciously close after Avicii sampled the same vocal). But enough of Mr 305 Worldwide palabras español y listado ciudades.

CC-BY-SA:

Samples and presets? Nope. Projects? Sure, seems fair to me.

CC-BY-NC:

Samples/presets maaaybe, projects once again seems fair.

"Conclusion"

So as is evident by the totally objective factual arguments that are missing from anything I just said, I can see a lot of licenses being fair for a lot of things. And I can see them having different benefits, too. Which is why, if it’s possible, I’d say having multiple projects with different licenses available might work. We can replace “Demos” and “Cool Songs” (difference?) and “Shorties” (Why is this a category?) with CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-NC/SA. Maybe that would be too confusing for users, or focus on the wrong thing. Perhaps we want to keep the licenses as transparent as possible to the end user. That makes sense too, and CC0 is pretty great on that front. On the other hand, shouldn't a producer get a grasp on basic copyright if they’re going to be using other’s work? CC is pretty useful to know about.

[Sti2nd]

Samples and presets
CC0 on samples and presets, IMO. There are many CC0 samples out there, right? There are even more licensed samples which some of them you would download and "forget" to give credit on, so making LMMS ship with samples and presets that you have to pay more attention to when you use them than the ones you download seems a bit illogical.

A thing I have thought about is: How can presets even be copyrighted? It makes no sense!?! You could just make a program that that twist all knobs and save the preset and then copyright all freaking possibilities, lol. If presets can be copyrighted, why isn't that a thing already?

Projects

We can replace “Demos” and “Cool Songs” and “Shorties” (...) with CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-NC/SA.

If credit is a way to go, this is a good idea.

_Assuming you are suggesting accreditation beyond the About dialogue in the following_
You are spot on when you say

if I were an artist), I wouldn't want to give away any serious work.
Cause that is how (I too think) we as artists think. Now as a contributor to the program LMMS. What is the purpose of the program LMMS? Is it both a program to make music with AND promote artists? Up until now, so it seems, but should it continue that trend? I feel the promotion part could be delegated to other areas of the community...

That said, I think it would be cool to have some songs with credit in the about section. Like a prize for winners of competitions for example. (And with limited time, like until next competition, a year.)

[tresf]

I vote we stop bundling non CC0 projects/samples as soon as possible. Not to punish the content authors -- but to free our users from the worry of accreditation or legalities.

The probability that a user will cherry-pick a portion of a good track is very high. We have no licence agreement mechanism requiring them to accept an agreement and I really don't think we should.

I really hope feelings aren't hurt by this decision. We still have the BoL competition, our Soundcloud page, our LSP and our Forums for sharing tracks that can't comply with CC0.

In order to make this happen in time for stable-1.2:

1. We need support from our active community members in regards to the decision (we don't want to push anyone away)
2. We need an individual who will volunteer to organize and complete this task prior to the release of 1.2.

If we can't meet these goals, we'll have to decide to either scrap the idea altogether or shelve the idea for a future build.

[Sti2nd]

or shelve the idea for a future build.

2.0

[SecondFlight]

I didn't even know we had samples that required attribution. There must be a better way to do this. How are royalty-free paid sample libraries handled? The original author is still the author and still holds the rights, but anybody who buys them can use them without giving attribution. There has to be some sort of way we can do this that doesn't require the original authors to give up ownership.

Now if I had spent 30 minutes making a couple of kick samples, I doubt I would have second thoughts about using CC0 for them, but project files are different.

I like @Spekular's ideas, except that really, if we're going to have samples that require attribution, it should probably be clear. Maybe we could change the folder structure to indicate this?

This brings me to another idea that I got by somewhat misreading something someone else said: Why not change the folder structure to mark projects that are CC0 and ones that aren't? This will let us keep in the licensed project files, (which will be available for download forever anyways because internet) while making sure people know the licensing situation.

[tresf]

That said, I think it would be cool to have some songs with credit in the about section. Like a prize for winners of competitions for example. (And with limited time, like until next competition, a year.)

The more I think about this the more I go back to @StakeoutPunch's point.... Our software shouldn't be a trophy people win or a place for self-promotion. Competitions are a judged guage of skill, popularity, talent and worth. Competitions are a snapshot in time.

Our software on the other hand is timeless. I think our albums and our promotional videos are a much better place for the artists to become recognized.

I just feel our software is a blank canvas and we shouldn't license the paint we use; nor should we should we bundle the canvas with a picture of a copyrighted work of art (regardless of how friendly the license is). We should allow artists to use the software in its vanilla form without worry of giving credit.

On the other hand, the LSP, soundcloud and bandcamp reserves certain rights. The license is implicitly part of the track.

[tresf]

I didn't even know we had samples that required attribution. There must be a better way to do this.

Agreed. The thing about samples is that they walk a fine line between what a "derivative work" is. If you use the sample in its original form it's not a derivative, but I agree we need to keep them as free as everything else.

How are royalty-free paid sample libraries handled? The original author is still the author and still holds the rights, but anybody who buys them can use them without giving attribution. There has to be some sort of way we can do this that doesn't require the original authors to give up ownership.

Black magic. Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

Basically, deep pockets :moneybag: allow sample library sellers to pretty much do as they wish.

Now if I had spent 30 minutes making a couple of kick samples, I doubt I would have second thoughts about using CC0 for them, but project files are different.

Understood, but then perhaps we don't offer them to the software, put rather put them in a place where licensing is assumed.

I like @Spekular's ideas, except that really, if we're going to have samples that require attribution, it should probably be clear. Maybe we could change the folder structure to indicate this?

A folder called CC0 means very little to an amateur musician. The idea is noble, but I feel it is unlikely to fix anything. It's like how the argument for making stricter gun rules only punishes those already following the law; Does nothing for those that have guns illegally. (probably a bad analogy -- sorry).

This brings me to another idea that I got by somewhat misreading something someone else said: Why not change the folder structure to mark projects that are CC0 and ones that aren't? This will let us keep in the licensed project files, (which will be available for download forever anyways because internet) while making sure people know the licensing situation.

I'm still not sure this improves anything per comment above. If we want our users to download CC0 projects and work on them, we should do it proactively through a delivery mechanism which encourages reading, understanding and obeying of the licensing. Our LSP does this to an extent, but it needs improvement.

-Tres

[SecondFlight]

I'm not worried about recognition, or even attribution in general. What I'm worried about is completely giving up my rights to the song. I doubt being in LMMS would gain me much recognition, if any, above what I already have from being part of this community.

A folder called CC0 means very little to an amateur musician

Well of course, it would have to be done in a better way than that. In the case of project files, "Free to use" makes a lot more sense than "CC0".

[Sti2nd]

What I'm worried about is completely giving up my rights to the song.

I think you shouldn't do it if you think you can benefit of owning it. When you get tired of it, it is then you can consider giving it away. I for example don't allow downloads on SoundCloud for songs I have made which I think are good, just in case I want to sell them or try a label or the impossible, suddenly get famous, lol. I usually enable it a few weeks later when I realize none of that is going to happen and my song could be better. So if you are worried, simply don't make it CC0, or wait a few weeks at least :earth_americas:

[Spekular]

Just to clarify I don't think artists should be promoted inside LMMS in any
way, I just don't think attribution=promotion. For example, I'm not
promoting a webpage if I put it my sources for an essay, am I?

[SecondFlight]

You have to remember, though, that I must respect Greippi's wishes as well, since this is a remix.

Just to clarify I don't think artists should be promoted inside LMMS in any
way,

I agree. I will admit that this has been a sort of goal of mine for a couple of years, but it has nothing to do with recognition. I suppose that I have accomplished my goal in a sense, because I think it's safe to say that my project would be accepted if it were CC0.

[SecondFlight]

but then perhaps we don't offer them to the software, put rather put them in a place where licensing is assumed.

Maybe a list of official demo songs with explicit licensing information? This would let us keep all our current project files, and we could still bundle some CC0 demos/loops/whatever in there. I certainly wouldn't mind making a looping demo or two with the intent of making them CC0.

[StakeoutPunch]

@Sti2nd That is not a very good analogy. There is a huge difference between giving up all rights to a song in its entirety and just allowing people to download it for free under ARR (or whatever else that isn't CC0).

This issue will more than likely never get solved. Artists are pretty much always going to want credit for their hard work. It takes a high level of dedication to completely disown hard work, a level that you are going to be hard pressed to find. I'm a firm believer that amazing work must come at a price, even if it is just some form of attribution.

There is a solution that is so simple I believe everyone has just overlooked it. License the songs as ARR, as they should be (and are in just about _every_ other DAW on the market). Then, allow the songs' creators to further define what the end user is allowed to do in the project notes. This is why ARR exists - so the artist can choose for themselves what others are allowed to do. The only reason CC really exists is to create a set of easy to understand, standard licenses (but CC is more like blanket terms at best). Save the project with the notes window maximized, and viola - the user knows what they can do with the song. This is a win/win... The artist gets credit for his/her work, and the user knows what they are allowed to do without having to know what CC0 or any other blanket license means.

@tresf I think you misquoted me talking about shameful promotion. There is a fine line, and I think that requiring CC0 demo songs is much different from requiring CC0 samples or presets. A lot more goes into a song _that would be worth including in the first place_ than a well-designed preset.

Also, quit tagging me, please.

[SecondFlight]

I think this makes perfect sense.

[Sti2nd]

That is not a very good analogy.

If you mean the SoundCloud thing, I agree, it was terrible. Not sure it was even meant as an analogy

[tresf]

Artists are pretty much always going to want credit for their hard work. It takes a high level of dedication to completely disown hard work, a level that you are going to be hard pressed to find. I'm a firm believer that amazing work must come at a price, even if it is just some form of attribution.

Like code?

There is a fine line, and I think that requiring CC0 demo songs is much different from requiring CC0 samples or presets. A lot more goes into a song that would be worth including in the first place than a well-designed preset.

Like the LMMS 1.0.0 theme? Converting the LSP? A new website? A new logo? Automated releases? New instruments? New plugins? Tens of thousands of lines of code in a year? No, a lot of work goes into a lot of things. Artists Most musicians just have different intentions when they dedicate their time to something. I argue we don't lower our standards. Sure, we enable the community musicians to pick their own license, but do we ship our software with projects that are not completely free? I vote no. I don't think it will hurt the software. I think we'll have more CC0 contributions than we give our users credit for.

But we need to make sure we do this in a way we don't upset our community. We want those artists and we want those tracks, just not necessarily bundled with the software.

-Tres

[tresf]

Note, if you think I'm completely off my rocker, tell me. I'm not the 12th juror here, I don't want to spoon feed something that no one wants, I just think we should come to a decision and CC0 I believe is in the best interest of our users.

[Spekular]

I'd say "sparing" users from learning CC and instead making them read
custom licenses that are unique for every project in LMMS is a bit
backwards. CC is easier to figure out than reading individual license.

As for credit for the program, contributors are listed in the about
dialogue. I believe that points to github as well, where it's easy to see
why started what issue and commited what code. Perhaps we ought to have
credit to the authors of project files in a similar way to github
contributors? I have an odd sense of ownership so I want to be able to
prove that something I made is mine, which seems to conflict with CC0. I'm
perfectly fine with CC0 as long as I'm still able to show "hey here's a
video where I released this song before it was CC0 or out anywhere" or
"look in the about dialogue, it was added by me to LMMS"

[StakeoutPunch]

@Spekular _edit:_ I edited my original response to a snarky quip and now I can't get the original back.

@tresf I do think you are going a little CC0 nuts. We could argue technicalities all day, but compromises are how things move forward. I stand by my statement that you will be hard pressed finding amazing demo content if you insist on it being CC0, just like my quality standards for BoL judges would make it near impossible to get a judging team. I see parallels, can you?

I'm going to see my way out now, this is irrelevant to me since I don't use LMMS anymore.

[Spekular]

@StakeoutPunch I'm not sure how you missed that I understood you perfectly
well, and then I said you were wrong. If we don't want users to have to
learn then custom licences are idiotic for so many reasons. They're unique
to each song, so the user has to relearn the license for every project.
They're not written by professionals, so the language micht be difficult.
Some artists might make very specific rules. If we don't want them to
learn, blocking the entire project with a wall of text is a horrible idea.
The user will have to learn the license of the project no matter what. With
custom licenses they have to relearn them much more often, every time they
forget, and every time they switch projects.

CC on the other hand is simple. There's a limited set of license "pieces"
that you combine. They've got both legalese and human readable versions.
Easy to read, easy to understand, easy to remember. And if we're going to
have license text in LMMS (fullscreened notes), we might as well have the
CC license text in there. Those who already know it can skip reading it.
Those who don't are done reading it quickly and never have to again because
its that easy.

[StakeoutPunch]

You are over complicating things with scenarios that may not exist due to screening, peer review, and other things that haven't even been discussed yet. Surely you aren't implying that an artist would really get away with a wall of text? Or that every single included ARR license is going to be radically different enough that it should be treated as it's own? It isn't hard to read a few sentences and frankly if an artist is going to lock down his/her song it definitely should not be included. But if you really just don't like it, so be it, we can agree to disagree. Keep in mind that we are just two voices here, you might want to think before calling an idea you've never used/tested "idiotic", even if you dislike it.

At this point all I am going to say is that you are being just as stubborn as I am, and there is no truly "right" solution in this scenario as both "sides" (ARR w/ project notes VS. full CC0) have pretty big negatives involved.

[Spekular]

@StakeoutPunch I escalated my stubborness to match yours. When you ask me
"how can you miss that" about something I understood perfectly, I might end
up using words like "idiotic" in response. Off topic personal attacks go
both ways. As for "wall of text" I don't mean it in the typical sense of a
really long text, I mean that you are literally blocking the users view
with text if you fullscreen the notes as you suggested, much like placing a
wall in front of them :P

[Sti2nd]

I want CC0 because I don't want fuss when using content in LMMS, but it makes perfectly sense that contributors get credited (like before). Wouldn't it be possible to combine CC0 and credit?

Example
Stian Jørgensrud
Brilliant song name
Licence: CC0 (this was just to make it clear)

The Author section already explains what function a person have had in LMMS, so this would be somewhat consistent in the way contributors are credited. This way people can tell that they have contributed to LMMS with a project and prove it by referring to the about section, and the user still have all the benefits.
_I guess this already were a part of the plan? but it didn't shine clearly through_

[grejppi]

Wouldn't it be possible to combine CC0 and credit?

Yes, and it is called CC BY.

[SecondFlight]

@Spekular Keep in mind, though, that "all rights reserved" means literally that, and if I want to give someone the right to, for example, use the presets in the project file, it literally only takes one line. Stuff like this doesn't really need to be complicated.

A good example:
"You have my permission to use this project file for anything. If you use the unedited original, however, I would ask that you give me credit."

Or, even more simply:
"You have permission to use and to make changes to this song."

That's the nice thing about all rights reserved. I have just made a one-line statement in which I still own my work but anyone can use it in any way without crediting me, and I still reserve all my other rights that I didn't explicitly give up.

@tresf What do you think about this idea?

[Sti2nd]

Yes, and it is called CC BY.

Nope. That demands that you always credit. What I am looking for is a licence that you get credited for the original work, but anyone can use without crediting you. I think Vesa and I mean the same, CC0 with moral obligations, you will be credited for the project, but it will be CC0 licenced.

[Sti2nd]

it literally only takes one line.

Isn't that one line too much? It would be seriously boring for a user to read every project note carefully in fear to licence...

[SecondFlight]

Well, they have to read a license either way. If the project notes window is in the front or just flat-out maximized, this won't be an issue.

[Sti2nd]

Well, they have to read a license either way. If the project notes window is in the front or just flat-out maximized, this won't be an issue

That's annoying, that's an issue! Would one need to read a licence if everything were CC0?

[SecondFlight]

Would one need to read a license if everything were CC-BY? Our goal here is not to give people the utmost convenience. People were expressing their worries that people might assume they're free to do anything with the track, and this solves that problem.

Also, no user is ever forced to read the licenses of all the demo projects. If they don't use the projects, then they won't need to have read the license. If they use the project, they will have already come across it.

[tresf]

I don't use LMMS anymore.

@StakeoutPunch Which is like saying "This is my opinion, I'm out". So please let this conversation continue without you. your opinion doesn't weigh in if you have no interest in seeing the software succeed. (That is not meant to sound harsh since I mis-quoted you to begin with.... we'd like you back, but until then, please stay out of this).

Anyone can use it in any way without crediting me.

@StakeoutPunch "All rights reserved" directly conflicts with CC0. They're not compatible.

Would one need to read a licence if everything were CC0?

:+1:

[...] contributors are listed in the about dialogue. I believe that points to github as well, where it's easy to see why started what issue and commited what code. Perhaps we ought to have credit to the authors of project files in a similar way to github contributors?

That is out of courtesy, not legal obligation. Furthermore, once a track submitter does a git commit, their name appears there too. If we accept @SecondFlight's track, he'll be in the list of contributors, which is sorted based on number of commits.

So credit out of courtesy versus credit out of obligation is quite different. We can do credit out of courtesy and allow unfa to put his logo and a link to his website in his track. Out of obligation is when we have to put the license.txt file there and people need to read it. The LMMS team has a track record in being courteous (this is out of respect and appreciation) but when we have the legal obligation to credit, it puts the decision in the hands of the creator as a legal obligation to give credit, which is quite different.

-Tres

[Umcaruje]

I think that samples should be CC0 and that tutorials and templates and presets should be too, but CoolSongs should not be CC0 because of the amount of work invested into them, and the amount of creative content they have. I think CC BY is a completely reasonable thing to ask for those kinds of songs.

@tresf Wrote:
Like the LMMS 1.0.0 theme? Converting the LSP? A new website? A new logo? Automated releases? New instruments? New plugins? Tens of thousands of lines of code in a year? No, a lot of work goes into a lot of things. Artists Most musicians just have different intentions when they dedicate their time to something. I argue we don't lower our standards. Sure, we enable the community musicians to pick their own license, but do we ship our software with projects that are not completely free? I vote no. I don't think it will hurt the software.

Yes, but you do get credited for every single line of code you contribute via commits. How would you feel if the whole commit history has been erased and there are only the names of the commits, but not who contributed them?

Also what about this scenario: I hear a song I like in the CoolSongs, and I want to hear more songs like it. How would I find out who the author is if there is no artist name in the project?

[SecondFlight]

Also, software isn't uploaded to multiple places for multiple purposes. Whatever license I put here is the license I have to use for everything else. If I were making the song for the sole purpose of having it be included in LMMS (in the case of a short demo), then it would be reasonable to make it CC0.

[tresf]

Yes, but you do get credited for every single line of code you contribute via commits. How would you feel if the whole commit history has been erased and there are only the names of the commits, but not who contributed them?

Well I may not be a great example because the majority of my help hasn't been through code contributions, but I don't believe I seek accreditation on anything. GitHub has this so we can play the blame game and ask questions, but that's just SCM 101. If GitHub called me user184857, I'd be ok with that too personally. (albeit hard to remember who's who)

Also what about this scenario: I hear a song I like in the CoolSongs, and I want to hear more songs like it. How would I find out who the author is if there is no artist name in the project?

Make a really nice about dialog. The project keeps it out of courtesy but the project has the freedom to remove it (for example, a link in the about dialog redirects to a malicious site because the domain name expired -- something that happens all the time!).

This is really the same problem we ran into with the Samples library. We said "hey, can we have your samples for free? we'll give you credit!". But this is a bait and switch. We can't promise credit under CC0, we can only offer it as a courtesy.

-Tres

[SecondFlight]

the project has the freedom to remove it

But you do reserve the right to flat-out remove the song.

[StakeoutPunch]

@tresf If you wish for me to do good on my words, stop tagging me already.

[Sti2nd]

Make a really nice about dialog.

Yes to that. The author sections looks nice. The contributor section looks... simple.

I still believe demo projects should be CC0. I think there is a difference. Demo projects don't need to be long, they don't even need to be the best, they need to show various aspects of LMMS, and they were probably created with that in mind. Full scale songs show how good music LMMS is capable of.

So if we are going with licence, can we have a folder named "licenced" so that it is clearer than now?

[SecondFlight]

I think he was talking about making a pretty thing in the project notes, but I could be wrong.

[Sti2nd]

in the project notes

as long as you don't put it on full screen -_-

[Umcaruje]

Demo projects don't need to be long, they don't even need to be the best, they need to show various aspects of LMMS, and they were probably created with that in mind.

So I should tend to make mediocre and semi-finished projects to be a demo in LMMS? Interesting.

[SecondFlight]

Full screen makes no sense, but people were worried that it wouldn't be obvious enough -_-

[SecondFlight]

So I should tend to make mediocre and semi-finished projects to be a demo in LMMS? Interesting.

We're putting a distinction between projects people submit as full songs and projects that people have created specifically to be demo projects and that they have no intention of completing.

[Spekular]

@SecondFlight what are you using since you left LMMS? Why'd you switch?
Just curious.

[Sti2nd]

So I should tend to make mediocre and semi-finished projects to be a demo in LMMS?

^^ If you want, but you could choose to make it into a song too.

[tresf]

@Spekular it was StakeoutPunch, not SecondFlight and this is way off topic, please ask elsewhere.

[SecondFlight]

@Spekular I'm learning FL, and I'll probably be using it more in the future than I do now. I don't have any plans to quit using LMMS, but I have found I can do more with FL. Again though, quite off-topic, so you can ask me in a PM or something if you want to know more.

[Spekular]

@tresf sorry.

[Spekular]

How exactly does one PM on GitHub. I'd rather figure that out than always ending up derailing some convo.

[SecondFlight]

One doesn't apparently. I'll @ message you on my LMMS repo.

[Sti2nd]

What are your thoughts @tresf @diizy on differing between

• Demo projects, licence: CC0
  
  
  
  • Made specifically to show various aspects of LMMS
  
  
• Full real life songs, licence: cc / specified in project notes
  
  
  
  • The best of the best?
  
  

Then we could put the licenced songs in a folder called Licenced songs, to make it clear. And in my opinion we should be really strict about letting songs into that folder. Unfa's song could be there, for example, because it serves a purpose.

[tresf]

IMO, Licensed Songs is a valid compromise if we are to not mandate CC0.

[SecondFlight]

@Spekular Nevermind, because I can't make issues on a forked version of something. Grr.

[SecondFlight]

@Spekular I found something.

[tresf]

@Spekular Nevermind, because I can't make issues on a forked version of something. Grr.

Yes you can, just enable it in your settings. :+1:

[SecondFlight]

Welp

[Spekular]

@SecondFlight the questions were actually meant for stakeoutPunch, I tagged
the wrong person. If you'd like to answer them anyways I could make a new
repo for it. Otherwise we could leave it :P

[SecondFlight]

I can answer questions if you want. I doubt stakeout wants to answer questions, but I could be wrong.

[tresf]

Would this be worth polling the Facebook page?

Sample poll:

Please vote on the future of LMMS "CoolSongs" which are not public domain (CC0):

1. I don't like them. Remove them, I use Soundcloud/Youtube/Etc for that anyway
2. Please remove all NON public-domain (non-CC0) songs so I can compose with what's left freely; without accreditation; without worry.
3. I like them AS IS. Don't mess with them.
4. Please add more CoolSongs regardless of what license they're under. I read the licenses when I remix. I promise to give credit when needed.

-Tres

[Spekular]

@tresf seems good, but it feels a bit personality test like, obscuring the
real auestion with a parallel. I would rather be more direct about it.
"What license should our example projects use?"

[SecondFlight]

Also, I would suggest adding an option having to do with CC0 demos and as-is project files.

Another thing, your language there seems very slightly biased:

freely; without accreditation; without worry.

Seems a tad excessive, but it's not a huge deal. :)

[SecondFlight]

Possibly a better way to say it would be "so I don't need to worry about attribution", since you can compose freely with any CC0 songs freely regardless of whether the other ones are there. Also, it might be worth pointing out that none of the demo songs are CC0, and that people will need to submit songs in order for there to be songs.

But again, it's not a huge deal.

I, for one, would vote to keep the demo songs simply because of Farbro - Tectonic :3

[Sti2nd]

Would this be worth polling the Facebook page?

If they hadn't removed the poll-feature, yes. We can link to a google form if you want

[tresf]

If they hadn't removed the poll-feature, yes. We can link to a google form if you want

Ah drat.

@Spekular @SecondFlight points noted, thanks. Assuming we make the adjustments to the poll, is this something others feel is a good approach to this problem?

[SecondFlight]

It works, although not everybody on the facebook page is knowledgeable about licensing, so keep that in mind.

If compatibility is going to break in 2.0 then we will have to remove all demo songs anyways. So why don't we wait to implement any drastic changes until then? This way, we don't have to decide what to do with the songs that are already there.

[tresf]

If compatibility is going to break in 2.0 then we will have to remove all demo songs anyways. So why don't we wait to implement any drastic changes until then?

If we push this to 2.0, it will be due to resources. The impact of breaking backwards compatibility isn't well defined yet, we just know stuff will break, so we can't really gauge the relevance of that milestone on what is still mostly a hypothetical on a timeline that is not even loosely defined IMO.

What we need is help with our samples, presets, projects and templates. That's an immediate need. The CC0 conversation can really be helped by someone who lives and breathes with the ones we have and the ones we can use in from our LSP, etc.

-Tres

[Sti2nd]

Do you want me to create a poll, or do you want to? You can post it to FB yourself, no need to ask me :)

[tresf]

Do you want me to create a poll, or do you want to? You can post it to FB yourself, no need to ask me :)

I'd prefer you post if it you don't mind. Trying to keep up with the bug tracker.

[SecondFlight]

If you do a poll, though, please post it here first so we can agree on what it says. Thanks :)

[pbella]

@tresf I'm in favor of sticking to your guns re: CC0. Anything else creates very murky legal waters for content creators all sorts using LMMS. Even with a CC0 licensing requirement, contributors should be given credit in the app (in the same way a developer, designer, etc. would be) not because it's required, but because it's the right thing to do. That way the contributors could be acknowledged without potentially passing on restrictions to the downstream artists using LMMS.

[Sti2nd]

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1cbVILNKnlrGMLGwbEcrOTNAaB-I9Y5ivHLTUTH92z-Q/viewform?usp=send_form

It is true that there are no CC0 songs in LMMS as of now. So I chose to merge 1 and 2. Also number 3 and 4 is very similar, but I guess 4 was aimed at opening for ARR, so I added CC licences in parenthesis, the only reason many of the songs have Artistic 2.0 as licence is because that is what LSP defaults to...

[SecondFlight]

I like them AS IS (CC licences).

Well, not quite accurate, but idk if that's even important.

I promise to give credit when needed.

Seems a bit strange to tag this on, but whatever.

I like them AS IS (CC licences). Don't mess with them.

Does option imply that we won't add more songs ever? If not, then 2 and 3 are the same. If so, then it should probably be worded as such.

I want both CC0 demos and licenced songs in LMMS.

Again, what does this imply? We won't have any CC0 songs unless they are provided. Also, I'm having trouble understanding the difference between this and number 3.

[tresf]

Again, what does this imply? We won't have any CC0 songs unless they are provided. Also, I'm having trouble understanding the difference between this and number 3.

Agreed, lol.

[tresf]

Thanks @pbella. Your vote reinforces the importance of this CC0 decision. I'm not even sure this poll will help anyone.

So as of right now, I think we should release 1.2 with non CC0 songs, but our goal is to clean this up for the future releases. I simply fail to see a good argument against fixing this moving forward. If we can get good CC0 songs, we can march forward. We just have to be careful how we describe this to the artists. I don't want users like @grejppi to think we're trying to run off with their work. That's never our intention.

[SecondFlight]

I don't think there's been a single artist who has advocated for CC0, or a programmer who has advocated for CC-BY. If there has been, it certainly isn't happening often. And ultimately, I guess the programmers have the final say, since they're the ones that actually maintain the project.

I could be misreading the situation, but from what I'm seeing, a compromise will not be reached unless the CC0 group allows it.

It's not something I'm complaining about particularly, but I guess it's something to think about.

[tresf]

I don't think there's been a single artist who has advocated for CC0, or a programmer who has advocated for CC-BY.

Those are fighting words. Let's not take sides here. To label us coders first or musicians first like picking a political party, religion or sports team. Let's be careful before we start calling this a programmer vs. musician argument. I know at least myself and Vesa still make music when we're not coding.

[SecondFlight]

Yeah, I may have worded it poorly. I just sort of realized that this debate is someone sided, and one of the sides holds more power and can make the decision.

[badosu]

@SecondFlight Please, try to see the point of view of a product owner. Which is what we are trying to do here: develop a product, and it has needs that transcend some power/technical or artistic arguments.

You may find CC-BY the best, someone may think that CC-0 is better: but what about the users?

[badosu]

@SecondFlight See the debate at https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120, everyone there is arguing fiercebly to defend their opinion. It's still somewhat undecided even today.

And actually we don't have one-sided decisions: what actually makes it harder to improve the software as everyone has opinions on everything.

[SecondFlight]

Forget it. I wasn't trying to say that there are two defined parties that polarize over every issue. I was trying to say something I had noticed about this particular discussion, and I guess I didn't do it too well.

[badosu]

I propose a solution for this:

• Maintain the Cool Songs and Demos folders as they are right now on all 1.x releases
• As soon as 2.0 becomes the main brach, remove all songs and demos and rethink this at that time
• Tag this issue as 2.0

[SecondFlight]

That's a good idea.

[musikBear]

tresf 5 days ago:

Like code?

Nailed it! ..This thread must be strange reading for toby ... (sorry :imp:

[unfa]

As for presets - I think they shold be treated similarly to samples. Most
of my music is constructed of presets, notes and automation. The art of
creating a preset is not something a random generator can do. It's like
composing a meal. You could throw random stuff into a bowl and blend it.
But I doubt it would be any good if you had no idea what you are doing. The
beauty of being an artist is that it works all the time, even when you're
not sweating. Tell an artist to do a random drawing: it'll be appealing.
Tell a non-artist (or a machine) to do so and you can see the difference
I'm talking about. If you program a machine to create art - you're actually
coding your own artistic reasoning. And you, not the machine is then
responsible for the generated work's appeal (or the lack of it).

So if we want to license samples under CC-BY, let's do the same for
presets.
I'd license samples and presets under CC-0 anyway and allow tracks to use
any CC license. I think a CC-BY-ND (no derivative works) is perfectly fine.
My vision for demo tracks is thar the user losds them to get inspired and
to learn, not to remix or borrow presets. And I think it's better to gave
the best track ever there under a more restrictive license, than not having
it there at all. I'd prefer that. Let the artists decide :)

I'd prefer having a tiny amount of content given to the users with the
program, but making sure it's top notch in every aspect, the absolute best
of our fantastic community.

I've got an idea we could be making community contests: for the best
samples and presets for every synth and category and for the best tracks in
every genre to create the asset library for LMMS 2.0.
1 lut 2015 12:16 "musikBear" [email protected] napisał(a):

tresf 5 days ago: > Like code?

Nailed it! ..This thread must be strange reading for toby ... (sorry [image:
:imp:]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1693#issuecomment-72360749.

[tresf]

@unfa thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think CC0 is the fairest approach to our users and I think it is a mentality we need to start having moving forward.

As far as having a contest to ship presets with 2.0, we would probably want to first have a release candidate of 2.0 to make them from since the anticipated changes to the underlying software for 2.0 (and therefore possible preset/xml changes) are quite unknown at this point.

But compatibility aside, we seem to lack in the management of presets/samples/projects/templates in general. This is an area a non-coder could really step in and help the project out and we have an immediate need for it as can be seen in the Samples library/thread.

[pbella]

@tresf Wouldn't work on presets and samples be safe to work on without having a defined 2.0? Isn't it just the project/template side of things that is the question mark? (i.e. samples would still need to be stored in standard file formats and presets would still be tied to plugins whose parameters are defined externally)

On a related note, would it make sense to start having a discussion to at least define at a high level what the current thinking is around what 2.0 will probably be? Right now it seems like a nebulous blob that is going to start blocking things until people understand what it is supposed to be. For example, I was planning on doing some work related to preset/sample metadata but 2.0 project migration sounds like it's going to be a more urgent issue so I was thinking of trying to lend a hand there if I knew what/where 'there' was...

[tresf]

@tresf Wouldn't work on presets and samples be safe to work on without having a defined 2.0? Isn't it just the project/template side of things that is the question mark? (i.e. samples would still need to be stored in standard file formats and presets would still be tied to plugins whose parameters are defined externally)

Sure, but this is hypothetical.

would it make sense to start having a discussion to at least define at a high level what the current thinking is around what 2.0 will probably be? Right now it seems like a nebulous blob that is going to start blocking things until people understand what it is supposed to be.

Yes. The current lead on it (Vesa) has had limited availability to chime in lately. Hopefully this will get sorted out soon. Sorry for the vagueness which surrounds the milestone. From my perspective, I too have a hard time envisioning where best to allocate our development resources towards this project. Please note that Vesa lead our re-theming initiative and I believe he did a good job on it (even though him and I had disagreed a few times on direction), but I cannot speak for him on behalf of 2.0, sorry.

For example, I was planning on doing some work related to preset/sample metadata but 2.0 project migration sounds like it's going to be a more urgent issue so I was thinking of trying to lend a hand there if I knew what/where 'there' was...

If I personally were to set a priority on anything, it would be:

• stable-1.2 Performance: Isolating improper DSP -> GUI invocations
• Undo
• Getting two of Mac bugs fixed (one is possible an upstream issue with fluidsynth, the other is a bug with the Zyn GUI).
• Reproducing and fixing lingering VST crashes

However, Vesa and I have slightly different opinions on this as he tends to want to make the core rewrite our number one priority.

We should probably settle on a priority once he's available to represent himself. Until then, I'll continue offering help where I can on ancillary issues. This makes me feel useful, but I understand why it doesn't help "paint the bigger picture" so to speak for future features. From what I'm observed, we have been making tremendous progress on existing bugs. I personally find this progress to add great value to the software but core focus adds tremendous value too. :+1:

[unfa]

I've got thinking about licensing content in LSP - is there any relation
between this and demo songs bundled with LMMS?

Also, I think some form of a metadata block in MMP/MMPZ and XPF files would
help attributing artists.

Would you agree to:

1. Make CC0 mandatory for samples and presets while providing some form of
   attribution inside the program?
2. Recommend CC-BY for songs but allow any CC license?a

@unfa https://github.com/unfa thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think CC0 is the fairest approach to our users and I think it is a mentality we need to start having moving forward.

As far as having a content to ship presets with 2.0, we would probably want to first have a release candidate of 2.0 to make them from since the anticipated changes to the underlying software (and therefore possible preset/xml changes) are quite unknown at this point.

But compatibility aside, we seem to lack in the management of presets/samples/projects/templates in general. This is an area a non-coder could really step in and help the project out and we have an immediate need for it as can be seen in the Samples library/thread.

[Sti2nd]

Agree on (...) Recommend CC-BY for songs but allow any CC license?

Not until you give a good reason for why, which weighs more than the ease of use for LMMS' users. :-)

[pbella]

@unfa I had a similar thought about metadata for the license info and it would definitely make sense to me to see it extend to incorporate at least all of the fields that you typically find in a song (i.e. artist, composer, song, album, etc.) as well as perhaps a URL to the artists web site (more on this below)

I'm also with @Sti2nd that keeping it simple for the users needs to be the focus (i.e. that they can freely reuse anything that ships with LMMS for their own music) but I think there is perhaps another way to think about things to accomplish what you and others are raising in terms of wanting to release things under less permissive licenses (which is totally understandable... it's just a matter of _how_ to do this).

Think of the content that ships with LMMS as promotional material where you are donating a bit to make LMMS better as well as getting your name and work out there. This does _not_ need to be content that you consider your best, most valuable work since you're giving it away after all. But it also can't be crap or an overt advertisement: it has to provide real value to the user and shouldn't have them scratching their head asking 'why is this here?' There's a bit of this that is altruistic: you're giving something of value away to make LMMS a better tool. Then put on your business hat and realize that there's a bit of this that is a promotional tool you can use to raise awareness of your work. However, the place to do the selling is not in the core of LMMS, but rather in tutorial blog posts and videos etc. If an artist controlled URL were included in the project metadata, you would then have a single click way to get users to view content that you are completely in control of including the license. So the quality of what you donate to the core of LMMS is your incentive to make it high quality since you want the user to be interested enough in it to see what else you've done and potentially use your other content potentially under different licensing terms.

So let's use your song Spoken as an example: if you wanted to contribute the whole song as CC0 that would be fantastic if that's what you want to do. But maybe you decide that, no, you really want that to be CC BY or something else entirely. So instead you could donate some sample loops and/or instrument presets from the song to LMMS as CC0 (another clearly identified need, so this would have real value to users) and use the metadata of these samples to point them to your web page you control where you make the CC BY download available.

One related thing I was thinking about the sample songs is that the current naming scheme isn't terribly helpful to users. While it's fine for songs that are just meant as 'hey, here's a cool song' type of tracks, the artist/title scheme does nothing to help me find what I'm looking for if I have a specific task I'm trying to accomplish where having something along the lines of 'Tutorial - soundfont' might be better. Would it make sense to start trying to put together a selection of projects that are geared toward specific tasks like this?

[tresf]

Would it make sense to start trying to put together a selection of projects that are geared toward specific tasks like this?

Yes. I actually agree with all points you've made. We just seem to lack someone with the time and ambition to do such a thing. :+1:

-Tres

[pbella]

Well I'll volunteer to put together a proof of concept example if that would help (don't be too impressed... I'd be using public domain music :-)

[tresf]

Well I'll volunteer to put together a proof of concept example if that would help (don't be too impressed... I'd be using public domain music :-)

Terrific!

[Sti2nd]

Great initiative pbella! :)

and use the metadata of these samples to point them to your web page you control where you make the CC BY download available.

Wait... I hope you mean the mmpz/song there, not the samples and presets?

@unfa With metadata on mmpz and presets, what does it mean? Is it regular metadata all files got, so you would have to open your file explorer to view it? As long as it doesn't have a restricting licence, sounds fair.

I've got thinking about licensing content in LSP - is there any relation
between this and demo songs bundled with LMMS?

Forgot to answer, Unfa. The relation is that many of the songs were downloaded from the lsp by Toby (the creator of LMMS) some day quite a few years back (according to the mailing list), and then put into LMMS. That's why the licences are only licences the lsp uses, and again, why most of the songs are artistic licence 2.0...

[pbella]

Wait... I hope you mean the mmpz/song there, not the samples and presets?

Definitely at least for mmpz/songs, but it might very well make sense to also do so for samples/presets where possible. I was getting a bit ahead of myself / the state of LMMS with my comment as I've been giving some thought to metadata across many different file types recently... but that's a different effort/discussion. For mmpz, this can be done in a hackish fashion today using the project notes but longer term, more structured metadata would be the way to go.

[Sti2nd]

but it might very well make sense to also do so for samples/presets where possible

If you think about it, that is the most cruel thing we could allow. If someone writes a licence in the metadata countless of users will probably use the sample and preset without knowing.

[pbella]

Don't get me wrong: my thinking is that included samples/presets would also be subject to the same CC0 requirements. So it's not like we'd allow people to start sneaking in additional terms there. i.e. the metadata there would simply allow that to be made explicit as well as provide some authorship credit and a link for more content by the author.

[Sti2nd]

So it's not like we'd allow people to start sneaking in additional terms there.

We need to be careful about that :alarm_clock: I understood that wasn't your intention :grinning:

[pbella]

We need to be careful about that

Most definitely. But at the same time, copyright metadata is far from uncommon: it's used in everything from word processor documents to image files to songs. It's the only simple and reliable way to ensure that the copyright notice gets propagated with the content. (I'm not factoring in bad actors or what happens when people convert file formats etc... that's well beyond the scope of what LMMS can do anything about)

[tresf]

If you think about it, that is the most cruel thing we could allow. If someone writes a licence in the metadata countless of users will probably use the sample and preset without knowing.

@Sti2nd having an area for licensing is a good idea. Don't confuse a licensing area in our projects with the strict CC0 requirements we are advocating for when bundling with the software. For example, LSP could read the licensing info; It could be displayed when opened; etc. However that doesn't mean he wants our DEFAULT projects/presets to hide licensing info in there... Does that make sense?

[Sti2nd]

I weren't talking about projects, only samples and mostly presets. I didn't quite understand "default projects/presets to hide licencing info in there", no, didn't make much sense to me :speaker:

[SecondFlight]

It's been 4 years since any discussion happened here, and in the spirit of pruning I'm going to close this issue. Feel free to reopen if you want to keep discussing this and for some reason feel the need to do it here as opposed to on discord 😉