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.