Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Source for music is missing, or music is incorrectly licensed #291

Open
gsliepen opened this issue Jul 18, 2016 · 5 comments
Open

Source for music is missing, or music is incorrectly licensed #291

gsliepen opened this issue Jul 18, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@gsliepen
Copy link

Egoboo has a single license file stating that it is GPL-3.0. Even the egoboo-assets repository contains a license.txt file saying everything is GPL-3.0. However, the GPL version 3.0 is quite specific: the source (the preferred form of modification) should be available, not just of computer programs, but of any copyrightable work. For music, the preferred form of modification is not the final .ogg file, rather it is the music score, sample set and perhaps other data that was involved in rendering the music.

Either you should add the source files that were used to create the music, or change the license of the music to something that fits the situation better, like CC-BY-SA 3.0.

@michaelheilmann
Copy link
Contributor

michaelheilmann commented Jul 19, 2016

@Zefz and @penguinflyer5234 please join the conversation. I do not switch licenses based on a "should" without carefully evaluating the consequences. However, this has no priority to me at the moment.

From the technical side:
BMPs were converted to PNGs and PNG is superior to BMP and BMPs are the only available sources (to our best knowledge). For the audio files: WAV shall be converted to FLAC as FLAC is superior to WAV and WAVs are the only available sources (to our best knowledge). The provision of converting all the WAV files to FLAC is important to me.

If we receive assets in more suitable formats, then those files will be certainly committed to the assets repository.

@gsliepen
Copy link
Author

gsliepen commented Jul 19, 2016

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 09:08:02AM -0700, Michael Heilmann wrote:

From the technical side:
BMPs were converted to PNGs and PNG is superior to BMP and BMPs are the only available sources (to our best knowledge). For the audio files: WAV shall be converted to FLAC as FLAC is superior to WAV and WAVs are the only available sources (to our best knowledge).

If we receive assets in more suitable formats, then those files will be certainly committed to the assets repository.

I don't think it matters whether you are using PNG vs BMP or FLAC vs WAV. I'd say even OGG is fine for sound effects; you can easily load those in a sound editor and work with them. Similarly, JPEG with a very high quality might also be fine. The GPL says nothing about bit-for-bit reproducability.

The issue is that the GPL says that the preferred form of modification of the works must be available. If you want to modify a texture or a sound effect, you just load the them in any image or sound editor.
However, when you modify music, the WAV/FLAC/OGG file is not preferred. Sure, you can maybe speed up or slow down the music, change the volume or add some reverb, but that's about it. If you want, say, change the melody or maybe change the sample used for the bass drum, then this is
impossible with those file formats. In that sense, the source code for the music in Egoboo is missing. That means the GPL does not apply, and in that case default copyright applies; under the copyright law you are not allowed to (re)distribute works. This means Linux distributions cannot package your music, not even in "non-free" repositories.

Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen [email protected]

@Zefz
Copy link
Contributor

Zefz commented Jul 19, 2016

It makes sense to make assets the more permissive CC-BY-SA 3.0 and keep the source code at GPL if this resolves some licensing issues with Linux packages.

The aim of the liscense is not to restrict useage but rather promote creative use and distribution.

@gsliepen
Copy link
Author

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:47:41PM -0700, JohanJansen wrote:

It makes sense to make assets the more permissive CC-BY-SA 3.0 and keep the source code at GPL if this resolves some licensing issues with Linux packages.

That would help. It also is not specific to Linux; this affects packages
for all platforms.

Many songs are apparently made by Adam Frechette. Make sure you actually
have permission from him to relicense his songs to CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen [email protected]

@michaelheilmann
Copy link
Contributor

michaelheilmann commented Feb 10, 2018

There was an interesting discussion in the old forum; this seems to be a long standing issue. So far, we have three names:

  • Klastek Timrak
  • Edward Blakely
  • Adam Frechette

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants