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]

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" notifications@github.com 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?