Credit For The Samples Collected On The Internet From Other Producers Royalty Free Packs

[HDDigitizerMusic]

As most of you know, Stian Jørgenrud, StakeoutPunch, Unfa and I have been working on a new sample pack to replace the current one.

We've been synthesizing, recording, collecting samples and being cautious on the amount of samples in the pack once we're done.

Everything has been going smooth, though there is one difficult thing we need to get past. Samples on the internet, because of licensing and approval. We have to be 100% sure the samples has the licencing that gives our users complete freedom without having to mention any credit on their projects.

Though credit is something that the producers will want when they let us use their royalty free samples. (Most 100% royalty free samples don't let you put them in sample packs as is, unless you get their approval.) We definitely can't have people credit each artist, but we can put the credit here:

The reason I find this pretty important is because I doubt many producers will want their samples on here without some kind of credit in LMMS.

But anyway, things are going good and I think LMMS's new sample pack is going to be great.

[diizy]

On 07/23/2014 04:46 AM, Digitizer wrote:

We definitely can't have people credit each artist, but we can put the credit here:

Yep, that can be done.

[Sti2nd]

@HDDigitizerMusic But be sure to tell them that they are literally giving away they samples for free, for a good cause ofc, and thus loosing all rights. You should save the text you receive from the producers, that would be our proof, although I doubt they will make any fuss even if they become frustrated with something.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

Will do. Thanks @Sti2nd @diizy .

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Stian Jørgensrud notifications@github.com wrote:

@HDDigitizerMusic https://github.com/HDDigitizerMusic But be sure to tell them that they are literally giving away they samples for free, for a good cause ofc, and thus loosing all rights. You should save the text you receive from the producers, that would be our proof, although I doubt they will make any fuss even if they become frustrated with something.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-49863309.

Digitizer out.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

Here's a template I will be using to contact all the producers/sample providers. I might do some minor editing for each message, but I won't have to write every single one from scratch every time. ;)

Hello, I’m ____, one of the many contributors for an open source DAW that is being built collaboratively called LMMS.

The LMMS team are looking for some excellent samples for our upcoming sample library. The royalty free samples you have given away for commercial and personal use are remarkable. We would love to have your permission to make your samples available for all LMMS users to use in our sample library.

This means that LMMS users would be able to use these samples without giving any attribution (CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) However, we can give you full credit for your work in the list of developers. (Name and email.)

Looking forward to your reply.

[Sti2nd]

"our upcoming pack", not very describing, and is it really a pack? It is just adding some more high quality samples. "full credit for your work"; I don't know what full means in this sentence, maybe drop it? Other than that, great template

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@Sti2nd

"our upcoming pack", not very describing, and is it really a pack? It is just adding some more high quality samples.

We're replacing them because no one knows the copyright to them and they are not very good samples. We're going to make new demos, so the problem of replacing them in the demos is no more.

Maybe "sample library" would be a better term?

"full credit for your work"; I don't know what full means in this sentence, maybe drop it? Other than that, great template

What it means by "full credit" is we put their name and email in the Author's list with name of the samples they created. We won't get any credit for creating the sample and they will. There for they have "full credit" for creating the sample(s)

[Sti2nd]

@HDDigitizerMusic SERIOUSLY? Were did the rumour: "copyrighted samples are included with LMMS" come from? I agree on that they could be of higher quality. Replace them? Then all projects with native LMMS will sound different or with no drums, and if you think that all native LMMS projects are demo songs, I advice you to look at this page http://lmms.sourceforge.net/lsp/index.php?action=browse&category=Projects @unfa offered to edit the old samples into higher quality, and we could alternatively replace them with similar sounds with same file name, is this change in sound acceptable for people @diizy @eagles051387 @grejppi @musikBear @mikobuntu @StakeoutPunch Or do you guys simply think that we can delete the old samples forever, this will let us save 4,47 MB according to my computer... Save, as in the new LMMS will then only be for example 16 MB bigger instead of 20 MB.

I think sample library is better. Guess you will have to explain them "full credit" when they ask.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@Sti2nd

SERIOUSLY? Were did the rumour: "copyrighted samples are included with LMMS" come from?

We don't know the licencing for the samples we currently have which is a common mistake I see in countless DAW's. To me its better safe than sorry. Unless we actually know what licencing they have, then we can keep the sounds.

we could alternatively replace them with similar sounds with same file name, is this change in sound acceptable for people

I think we should most definitely do that.

I think sample library is better. Guess you will have to explain them "full credit" when they ask.

Changed the terms for "sample pack" to "sample library" and added some more explanation to the "full credit" area.

[musikBear]

whatch out!

What it means by "full credit" is we put their name and email in the Author's list with name of the samples they created. We won't get any credit for creating the sample and they will. There for they have "full credit" for creating the sample(s)

Is that your intrepetation of full credit ? The issue here is *what is the LEAGAL !!!MEANING!!! of the TERM full credit !!! and it is much more complicated that that! Leagal meaning / what country / ?! Home-land of LMMS ? -whitch is ? Home-land of contributor ? Here you are in lawyer-land. That is a scarry completely unpredictable area for amateurs. -As i see it, only creative-common in one way or another, should be offered. If an error happens here, someone could file a ABSURDLY HUGE LAWSUIT** !!! This is NO fun at all!

---

Oki that was the important thing. And it IS important! But i also have an opignion (surprizeee:) on the 'replace all named clips'. imo not a good idea. Instead the new pack should be with guanteed different names! Let the individual user decide what he wnat to use in respect to sounds. The leagal stuff is totally irrelevant for the enduser - heck, he could use a baff of lars ulrich in a 'song' NO-ONE would know / care. The leagal stuff is ONLY relevant to the release, so let users keep all old sound-clips, and present a brand new pack with guanteed NO duplicate names at all! This way its up to the USER to decide what he uses. LMMS is totally in the clear (if contributors will accept a CC where a credit byline in 'About' is offered)

[diizy]

On 07/24/2014 03:42 PM, musikBear wrote:

whatch out!

What it means by "full credit" is we put their name and email in
the Author's list with name of the samples they created. We won't
get any credit for creating the sample and they will. There for
they have "full credit" for creating the sample(s)

Is that your intrepetation of /full credit/ ? The issue here is what is the LEAGAL !!!MEANING!!! of the TERM *full credit !!! and it is much more complicated that that! Leagal meaning / what country / ?! Home-land of LMMS ? -whitch is ? Home-land of contributor ? Here you are in lawyer-land. That is a scarry completely unpredictable area for amateurs. -As i see only /creative-common/ in one way or another, should be offered. If an error happens here, someone could file a ABSURDLY HUGE LAWSUIT !!! This is NO fun at all!

Calm down... no need to panic. It's not that hard: contributors must release their content under CC0.

[musikBear]

great if you have this pinned! - But imo, avoid words that could have leagal implications in contact mails.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@musikBear has a point, we've got to be careful about this. The people who I'm contacting are already giving away the sample 100% royalty free for commercial and personal uses. We just need permission to put them in LMMS because most of those producers won't let you make a sample pack with them as is, unless we can get their specific permission.

on the 'replace all named clips'. imo not a good idea. Instead, the new pack should be with guanteed different names! Let the individual user decide what he wnat to use in respect to sounds. The leagal stuff is totally irrelevant for the enduser - heck, he could use a baff of lars ulrich in a 'song' NO-ONE would know / care. The leagal stuff is ONLY relevant to the release, so let users keep all old sound-clips, and present a brand new pack with guanteed NO duplicate names at all! This way its up to the USER to decide what he uses. LMMS is totally in the clear (if contributors will accept a CC where a credit byline in 'About' is offered)

I do agree with you. Honestly, I've really never used LMMS's samples because I thought it would lead me into some lawsuit. I gathered my own samples with the most secure a best licensing I could find. If we did replace the sounds with the same name, there are a lot of irrelevant samples which we really don't need. Like loops, honestly, if you like them, you can get some online but for me, I never really use loops, or instrument clips: if you want an instrument melody, you can get a real one or a vst. Actually any sampled synth or instrument is really unnecessary to me. I always use vsts for my piano or guitar or violin or anything. That could clear up a lot of unnecessary space.

Now here's a thought I had, what if we did delete the old sample pack and put in place a more necessity full sample library with much better sorting and naming. Then we could .zip up the old one and put it for download online to go with older compatible project files. We create a tutorial teaching people how to import it at their own risk so they can use the older project files. We could even create another page for new project files for the version which the new library will be implanted.

[eagles051387]

I have a better idea. Why dont we have bare basic samples as part of lmms and the rest include for download via lsp On 24 Jul 2014 19:40, "Digitizer" notifications@github.com wrote:

@musikBear https://github.com/musikBear has a point, we've got to be careful about this. The people who I'm contacting are already giving away the sample 100% royalty free for commercial and personal uses. We just need permission to put them in LMMS because most of those producers won't let you make a sample pack with them as is, unless we can get their specific permission.

on the 'replace all named clips'. imo not a good idea. Instead, the new pack should be with guanteed different names! Let the individual user decide what he wnat to use in respect to sounds. The leagal stuff is totally irrelevant for the enduser - heck, he could use a baff of lars ulrich in a 'song' NO-ONE would know / care. The leagal stuff is ONLY relevant to the release, so let users keep all old sound-clips, and present a brand new pack with guanteed NO duplicate names at all! This way its up to the USER to decide what he uses. LMMS is totally in the clear (if contributors will accept a CC where a credit byline in 'About' is offered)

I do agree with you. Honestly, I've really never used LMMS's samples because I thought it would lead me into some lawsuit. I gathered my own samples with the most secure a best licensing I could find. If we did replace the sounds with the same name, there are a lot of irrelevant samples which we really don't need. Like loops, honestly, if you like them, you can get some online but for me, I never really use loops, or instrument clips: if you want an instrument melody, you can get a real one or a vst. Actually any sampled synth or instrument is really unnecessary to me. I always use vsts for my piano or guitar or violin or anything. That could clear up a lot of unnecessary space.

Now here's a thought I had, what if we did delete the old sample pack and put in place a more necessity full sample library with much better sorting and naming. Then we could .zip up the old one and put it for download online to go with older compatible project files. We create a tutorial teaching people how to import it at their own risk so they can use the older project files. We could even create another page for new project files for the version which the new library will be implanted.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50051836.

[mikobuntu]

Imo Although Im always one for improvement, this usually means change, but the main problem here is with backward compatibility and especially for the demo songs. This is where it gets tricky. We could have 3 options here(1) leave the samples in LMMS as they are and offer up the download of the new samples, perhaps through the "Help" menu or some menu item ( hydrogen drum machine allows adding sample kits through its gui, where they get downloaded to a hidden user directory in the home folder ) or .... (2) for the next release have all new demo etc songs using all new samples, while removing all old samples .... or (3) Keep all old samples intact and have a new category for the new samples and include all in the install. number (3) makes more sense for backward compat, but the LMMS binary will increase in size as a result.

thanks Mikobuntu ;)

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:59:59 -0700 From: notifications@github.com To: lmms@noreply.github.com CC: chrissy.mc.1@hotmail.co.uk Subject: Re: [lmms] Credit For The Samples Collected On The Internet From Other Producers Royalty Free Packs (#1018)

I have a better idea. Why dont we have bare basic samples as part of lmms

and the rest include for download via lsp

On 24 Jul 2014 19:40, "Digitizer" notifications@github.com wrote:

@musikBear https://github.com/musikBear has a point, we've got to be

careful about this. The people who I'm contacting are already giving away

the sample 100% royalty free for commercial and personal uses. We just need

permission to put them in LMMS because most of those producers won't let

you make a sample pack with them as is, unless we can get their specific

permission.

on the 'replace all named clips'. imo not a good idea. Instead, the new

pack should be with guanteed different names! Let the individual user

decide what he wnat to use in respect to sounds. The leagal stuff is

totally irrelevant for the enduser - heck, he could use a baff of lars

ulrich in a 'song' NO-ONE would know / care. The leagal stuff is ONLY

relevant to the release, so let users keep all old sound-clips, and present

a brand new pack with guanteed NO duplicate names at all! This way its up

to the USER to decide what he uses. LMMS is totally in the clear (if

contributors will accept a CC where a credit byline in 'About' is offered)

I do agree with you. Honestly, I've really never used LMMS's samples

because I thought it would lead me into some lawsuit. I gathered my own

samples with the most secure a best licensing I could find. If we did

replace the sounds with the same name, there are a lot of irrelevant

samples which we really don't need. Like loops, honestly, if you like them,

you can get some online but for me, I never really use loops, or instrument

clips: if you want an instrument melody, you can get a real one or a vst.

Actually any sampled synth or instrument is really unnecessary to me. I

always use vsts for my piano or guitar or violin or anything. That could

clear up a lot of unnecessary space.

Now here's a thought I had, what if we did delete the old sample pack and

put in place a more necessity full sample library with much better sorting

and naming. Then we could .zip up the old one and put it for download

online to go with older compatible project files. We create a tutorial

teaching people how to import it at their own risk so they can use the

older project files. We could even create another page for new project

files for the version which the new library will be implanted.

—

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50051836.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[eagles051387]

What do you guys think of an internal browser that will connect to lsp from within lmms to download the samples On 24 Jul 2014 22:50, "Mikobuntu" notifications@github.com wrote:

Imo Although Im always one for improvement, this usually means change, but the main problem here is with backward compatibility and especially for the demo songs. This is where it gets tricky. We could have 3 options here(1) leave the samples in LMMS as they are and offer up the download of the new samples, perhaps through the "Help" menu or some menu item ( hydrogen drum machine allows adding sample kits through its gui, where they get downloaded to a hidden user directory in the home folder ) or .... (2) for the next release have all new demo etc songs using all new samples, while removing all old samples .... or (3) Keep all old samples intact and have a new category for the new samples and include all in the install. number (3) makes more sense for backward compat, but the LMMS binary will increase in size as a result.

thanks Mikobuntu ;)

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 12:59:59 -0700 From: notifications@github.com To: lmms@noreply.github.com CC: chrissy.mc.1@hotmail.co.uk Subject: Re: [lmms] Credit For The Samples Collected On The Internet From Other Producers Royalty Free Packs (#1018)

I have a better idea. Why dont we have bare basic samples as part of lmms

and the rest include for download via lsp

On 24 Jul 2014 19:40, "Digitizer" notifications@github.com wrote:

@musikBear https://github.com/musikBear has a point, we've got to be

careful about this. The people who I'm contacting are already giving away

the sample 100% royalty free for commercial and personal uses. We just need

permission to put them in LMMS because most of those producers won't let

you make a sample pack with them as is, unless we can get their specific

permission.

on the 'replace all named clips'. imo not a good idea. Instead, the new

pack should be with guanteed different names! Let the individual user

decide what he wnat to use in respect to sounds. The leagal stuff is

totally irrelevant for the enduser - heck, he could use a baff of lars

ulrich in a 'song' NO-ONE would know / care. The leagal stuff is ONLY

relevant to the release, so let users keep all old sound-clips, and present

a brand new pack with guanteed NO duplicate names at all! This way its up

to the USER to decide what he uses. LMMS is totally in the clear (if

contributors will accept a CC where a credit byline in 'About' is offered)

I do agree with you. Honestly, I've really never used LMMS's samples

because I thought it would lead me into some lawsuit. I gathered my own

samples with the most secure a best licensing I could find. If we did

replace the sounds with the same name, there are a lot of irrelevant

samples which we really don't need. Like loops, honestly, if you like them,

you can get some online but for me, I never really use loops, or instrument

clips: if you want an instrument melody, you can get a real one or a vst.

Actually any sampled synth or instrument is really unnecessary to me. I

always use vsts for my piano or guitar or violin or anything. That could

clear up a lot of unnecessary space.

Now here's a thought I had, what if we did delete the old sample pack and

put in place a more necessity full sample library with much better sorting

and naming. Then we could .zip up the old one and put it for download

online to go with older compatible project files. We create a tutorial

teaching people how to import it at their own risk so they can use the

older project files. We could even create another page for new project

files for the version which the new library will be implanted.

—

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50051836.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50076190.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@eagles051387

What do you guys think of an internal browser that will connect to lsp from within lmms to download the samples

That sounds awesome! From there, you could select the old sample pack to add onto the new one?

I really think we should get the unknown licenced samples off of LMMS. Not knowing is just as bad as knowing you can't use them in my opinion. It would just make me feel a lot better about LMMS knowing the licencing is good for all of the samples.

@mikobuntu

(3) Keep all old samples intact and have a new category for the new samples and include all in the install.

I'm thinking the other way around. Make the old ones available for download.

[mikobuntu]

Make the old ones available for download. That sounds ok to me,

thanks Mikobuntu ;)

[eagles051387]

What you need to decide the basic new samples will be included in lmms by default On 24 Jul 2014 23:06, "Digitizer" notifications@github.com wrote:

@eagles051387 https://github.com/eagles051387 That sound awesome. From there, you could select the old sample pack to add onto the new one?

I really think we should get the unknown licenced samples off of LMMS. Not knowing is just as bad as knowing you can't use them in my opinion. It would just make me feel a lot better about LMMS knowing the licencing is good for all of the samples.

@mikobuntu https://github.com/mikobuntu I'm thinking the other way around. Make the old ones available for download.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50078249.

[Sti2nd]

Not enough answered the question to be sure that we want to remove the old samples. HDDigitizer and mikobuntu gave their vote on removing/updating and let the old ones be downloadable. I vote on keeping them. Are you okay with updating/removing the samples from LMMS?

If we decide on only updating the samples, it means they will have the same name and must be similar to the one it will replace. It does not make sense to replace the drumsynth files, but all the other ones would have to be updated. If we only update samples, it will perhaps limit the sample set, perhaps are we lacking a name for cowbell, so a mix between updating and introducing new samples would be fine. But would it be strange with some old samples in between of the new/updated ones?

[StakeoutPunch]

I believe this kind of discussion is best kept to things like skype chats, etc. This just seems to be a clutter of the issue tracker, imo, especially considering there has already been a ticket about this topic and it derailed every other message.

If anyone would like a progress update from me, or wants to hear my opinion, please contact me privately. I know I have no power to say so, but I believe this should be closed as it is just a discussion about things still in the air.

[musikBear]

Im not critizising the abowe written template, i just sugest a few 'addies' :) The [...blah..] is ofcause not meant to be in the template :dancers:

Hello, I’m ____, one of the many contributors for an open source DAW that is being built collaboratively called LMMS.

The LMMS team are looking for some excellent samples for our upcoming sample library. The royalty free samples you have given away for commercial and personal use are remarkable. We would love to have your permission to make your samples available for all LMMS users, under the CC0 licence [perhaps here a link to the actual CC0 page, that would leagally insure that both the reciepient and sender knows exactly what this agreement is build on] to use in our sample library.

This means that LMMS users would be able to use these samples as CC0 licenced samples, in both their non-comercial and comercial releases. We will of cause give you credit for your work, in the list of developers. (Name email, and a link to your homepage. [this is a carrot, lets sweaten it] )

Looking forward to your reply.

oki, Wheater or not samples are to be kept or dropt, i think that when the actual release does come, it is important that the user are informed, before the install. A heads up in the install, with an option to quit, would be neat. Eg give the use a chance to safety-copy all his samples, before install of new ones. (Have you thought about users who actually have collected many other samples, and placed them in the lmms-samples? -The delete/ overwrite/ remove aspect is trickyii.. )

[Umcaruje]

What do you guys think of an internal browser that will connect to lsp from within lmms to download the samples

@eagles051387 there was already talk about that on the mailing list. That feature actually existed in the old master, but it was agreed that it could bring up a lot of problems, so it probably wont be implemented again. I am surprised you don't know that even though you are the project manager.

[Umcaruje]

Is that your intrepetation of full credit ? The issue here is what is the LEAGAL !!!MEANING!!! of the TERM *full credit !!! and it is much more complicated that that! Leagal meaning / what country / ?! Home-land of LMMS ? -whitch is ? Home-land of contributor ? Here you are in lawyer-land. That is a scarry completely unpredictable area for amateurs. -As i see it, only creative-common in one way or another, should be offered. If an error happens here, someone could file a ABSURDLY HUGE LAWSUIT !!! This is NO fun at all!

@musikBear that is pure bullshit. They already said that the samples will be CC0 - Public Domain. And with works in public domain you can't create a lawsuit. so please stop spreading panic, its counterproductive.

We will of cause give you credit for your work, in the list of developers. (Name email, and a link to your homepage. [this is a carrot, lets sweaten it] )

Nobody got their homepage noted in the authors.txt file, so why would the Sample makers be different? They should get their name and email noted, just like anyone else.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@musikBear

[perhaps here a link to the actual CC0 page, that would leagally insure that both the reciepient and sender knows exactly what this agreement is build on]

All right, I put the link in there. :+1:

Hello, I’m ____, one of the many contributors for an open source DAW that is being built collaboratively called LMMS.

The LMMS team are looking for some excellent samples for our upcoming sample library. The royalty free samples you have given away for commercial and personal use are remarkable. We would love to have your permission to make your samples available for all LMMS users to use in our sample library.

This means that LMMS users would be able to use these samples without giving any attribution (CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) However, we can give you full credit for your work in the list of developers. (Name and email.)

Looking forward to your reply.

---

@Sti2nd

HDDigitizer and mikobuntu gave their vote on removing/updating and let the old ones be downloadable. I vote on keeping them. Are you okay with updating/removing the samples from LMMS?

The only problem I have with this is the current sample library isn't sorted very well and most of them are unneeded loops or sampled instrument one-shots that are taking up unnecessary space. Its kind of hard to get around the sample pack. The folders have sort of misguiding names that have mixed up types of instruments/drums in them. If we replaced them, we could have much better sorting such as a folder named kicks with ten kicks in them, then snares, then cymbal and so on fourth.

---

@StakeoutPunch

I believe this kind of discussion is best kept to things like skype chats, etc.

I don't think that's necessary. I believe our points are coming across rather well.

[diizy]

On 07/25/2014 09:23 PM, Digitizer wrote:

---

@StakeoutPunch https://github.com/StakeoutPunch

I believe this kind of discussion is best kept to things like
skype chats, etc.

I don't think that's necessary. I believe our points are coming across rather well. Though if we're going to vote that might be our best option.

No voting or any kind of official discussion or decision making will ever be done via Skype as long as I have any say in the matter.

The official channels for LMMS development are the mailing list and GitHub. Any communication method that depends on proprietary, non-free software and is known to disrespect user privacy is definitely 100% off the table.

[Sti2nd]

I have continued the discussion on the devel mailing list: http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Credit-For-The-Samples-Collected-On-The-Internet-From-Other-Producers-Royalty-Free-Packs-1018-td9744.html

[Sti2nd]

@HDDigitizerMusic Anyway, with the feedback you got, you could go ahead and contact people! :dart:

[StakeoutPunch]

@diizy Hence the etc. I'm not here to argue, I just believe that this discussion has had one ticket too many considering we've already had one and it went everywhere.

Considering this discussion hasn't exactly been about any actual development, I don't see why spammy ideas couldn't be thrown around in a closed discussion between the people actually tasked with it.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

I contacted a producer called Markus Hakala about his samples (I've found contacting people through facebook much more efficient than any other method I've tried.) and this was his reply...

...and here are the samples I'll be sorting through: https://soundcloud.com/markushakala/sets/kicks-2

I love this kick samples and use them in almost all my tracks. Here's how they sound in the mix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38el0SLiP7U

Looks like people are reacting nicely to this. Once the sample library is complete, I'll have a list of people to add to the credit. ;)

[eagles051387]

I am to blame as i didnt check the mailing list archives. I dont see how this woudl be a problem though. the person who created the sample would give their consent that the sample was given and is free for both commercial and non commercial use or what ever.

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Umcaruje notifications@github.com wrote:

What do you guys think of an internal browser that will connect to lsp from within lmms to download the samples

@eagles051387 https://github.com/eagles051387 there was already talk about that on the mailing list. That feature actually existed in the old master, but it was agreed that it could bring up a lot of problems, so it probably wont be implemented again. I am surprised you don't know that even though you are the project manager.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50175715.

Jonathan Aquilina

[drunkenjesus]

Instead of looking for royalty free samples it may be best to look for samples that are public domain already. Off the top of my head I know their's a multi-sampled acoustic PD drumkit floating around & the university of Iowa has numerous PD instrument samples. A lot of free samples have been around the net forever and tracking down the creator may prove pretty difficult.

I doubt any kind of lawsuit is a possibility, the most that would happen would be a cease and desist notice but removing samples if you don't know the license is probably a good idea, replacing them with samples of the same name & style would probably be ideal & you could just state that the samples have been changed on the release so people could copy the old samples before updating and use them at their own discretion if they don't like how the replacements sound

As for the seperate/bundled issue I think it all depends on how big of a difference their is in the file size, right now their's only like 4MB in samples, so if theirs a lot more content added keeping a similarly small sized set of samples included & offering the rest separately would probably be the best way to go about things, with wav files it wouldn't take all that many to double or triple the download size and not everybody would necessarily be interested in the new content

I have numerous drum & a few synth samples I've personally created & would be willing to share, also on KVR in the samples sub-forum people post free samples pretty frequently

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@drunkenjesus

Instead of looking for royalty free samples it may be best to look for samples that are public domain already.

I think that's a great idea. The samples I'm looking for have licensing that won't create any problems. Both would make an amazing sample library.

As for the seperate/bundled issue I think it all depends on how big of a difference their is in the file size, right now their's only like 4MB in samples, so if theirs a lot more content added keeping a similarly small sized set of samples included & offering the rest separately would probably be the best way to go about things, with wav files it wouldn't take all that many to double or triple the download size and not everybody would necessarily be interested in the new content

I'm almost certain we won't have as many samples in the new pack as we do now. With cutting down all unnecessary samples and only putting the best of the best in, I think will give us much more space.

I have numerous drum & a few synth samples I've personally created & would be willing to share, also on KVR in the samples sub-forum people post free samples pretty frequently

I would totally like to hear them! I'm sure if you want, we could add you to the process on google drive? Seems like you have some recourses we could use?

[drunkenjesus]

Sure I'd be down, forgot that most samples are OGG so w/ compression files won't be very large, my google account is drunk3nj3sus@gmail.com, I'll start uploading all my files most of the synth sounds I converted to sf2's but I can easily extract the waves

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3rQL_c2ikHwVWFYUlVIVHROVmc&usp=sharing < my google drive

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@drunkenjesus Alright, invite sent.

Anyone can check our progress here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tjWQJRpGs2XR8yZoCuTJogHUfOhstISVWsrEhY4PPTs/edit#gid=288286575

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:01 PM, drunkenjesus notifications@github.com wrote:

Sure I'd be down, forgot that most samples are OGG so w/ compression files won't be very large, my google account is drunk3nj3sus@gmail.com, I'll start uploading all my files most of the synth sounds I converted to sf2's but I can easily extract the waves

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/1018#issuecomment-50253505.

Digitizer out.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

Subaqueous agreed to let us use all his free samples:

I told him we want all we can get. (Even if they won't be in this library but as a larger add-on pack we have been planning.)

[StakeoutPunch]

What happens when we have 5 huge sample packs? Plus whatever Unfa and myself come up with?

What happened to the "small but good addition" to the native samples?

[Sti2nd]

I think most of them, or yours, will be in a extra downloadable package if I read HDDigitizer's mind correctly. He too wants the sample pack to be small.

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@StakeoutPunch @Sti2nd Yes, not small, just at a reasonable size that won't take up too much MB. I'm thinking for our format we will have a bunch of folders named "Kicks," "cymbals," "snares," Claps, etc... (Maybe ten or at max fifteen folders.) Inside we have fifteen of our best, let's say kick samples for any style. Just the necessities for producing music.

Then we can release much larger packs full of every high quality CC0 samples that we can be more creative with. (Taiko, cowbell, gunshot sounds, you name it.)

I'm going to tone down the Subaqueous and Markus Hakala samples and put the best their correct folders for the initial sample library, but for the ones we'll be putting up for download, I can put all of them in.

[tresf]

@HDDigitizerMusic please update this thread or it will be closed. You've been absent from the Samples library for months and there are some concerns with the way some of these Samples were collected that require your attention and your clarification.

[tresf]

I'm putting this on the 1.1 timeline not because it will make the cut, but because I'm sick of waiting and I'd like some immediacy of responsibility on this stagnant topic. :)

[tresf]

Bumping to 1.2. If the samples library is abandoned or under the wrong licensing, we shouldn't be hosting it.

[StakeoutPunch]

Afaik nothing has been done about licensing. Unless someone wants to try contacting the pack owners again, I think this should be delete at will as it has been sitting forever.

[tresf]

@HDDigitizerMusic come back and finish this pack. :( Closing.

[musikBear]

Has received several IM regarding a sample named 'raving_crowd01.ogg' That sample should be from a sample-pack, that is not C0 The OP writes:

_I found a sample in LMMS's Native collection that is only licensed for personal use, (ravingcrowd01.ogg, 65 Kb). It did not have a transferrable license either, so this may cause problems for distribution. Please consider.

He has send me 3 IM on this now, with several sceneries. Imo LMMS could just dump that particular file, and thats it So remove it from the package?

[tresf]

Tell him to file a bug and point him directly to this post. (Not the thread, but this tresf commented 1 days ago URL.

We need proof that the sample is part of a collection and we need to contact the author of the collection.

Why? Well, CC0 means you, MusikBear Incorporated can freely and legally package up raving_crowd01.ogg and sell it under your own license. CC0 allows samples to be re-released under restricted licenses, open licenses, whatever. We don't pull samples out of LMMS because they're not being released CC0 elsewhere, but rather pull them if we never had permission to release them in the first place. :+1:

If he can prove this to us or alternately point us to the entity that can prove this, we'll remove it. Otherwise, your'e both wasting people's time.

[tresf]

A good video about this problem is explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

Pay close attention to the part about ownership.

[SirBothersome]

I'm the insufferable butthead who has been pestering musikbear. Unfortunately, the site where I found the content appears to be compromised. I got assaulted by soft-porn content last time I was there. I'll be back on this

[SirBothersome]

@HDDigitizerMusic

I do agree with you. Honestly, I've really never used LMMS's samples because I thought it would lead me into some lawsuit>

Yup, same here. I think flushing the sample library of all third-party content is our best bet for new releases

[SirBothersome]

Hey Look! A relicensable, redistributable, royalty free collection of my made-from scratch samples! WOW! How convenient, [https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3XfhZOnbJctcjlvelY4UWl0Tm8]

[tresf]

@SirBothersome please issue a PR against https://github.com/LMMS/samples.

Edit: Or better yet, take over our samples repo. We need help. :)