From: <ins...@li...> - 2010-09-01 12:07:18
|
Excuse me but I think that the first e-mail of this thread meant being sure to have some legal statement that certifies the usability of the included samples, usability that was implicit. Now it seems it is given for accepted that these samples are taken from outside the open source dominion. ? ----Messaggio originale---- Da: lou...@gm... Data: 1-set-2010 6.07 A: "Stefan Fendt"<st...@sf...> Cc: <lmm...@li...> Ogg: Re: [LMMS-devel] License for LMMS samples and plugins Stefan, I hear what you are saying, but my stance is just to not be paranoid about it. LMMS does not contain any recognizable samples. It has base drums, hihats and snares and there is seriously no way to prove that those drums are not just similarly sounding samples of basically same stuff. So yeah - if it is a vocal recognizable sample - sure, you might have problems. But if it is a kick, for God's sake - who is going to recognize it, let alone sue you - there is no way to prove you've used THEIR base drum, since all of them sound generic. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Stefan Fendt <st...@sf...> wrote: Am 31.08.2010 22:09, schrieb Louigi Verona: > Hey Thomas! > > It might be an issue for a distro, but not when you are releasing an > album. Certainly not when samples do not exceed 5 seconds anyway. You are — I'm sorry to say — definitely wrong. At least here in Germany (and most other countries in Europe have the very simmilar laws for that) it doesn't count how _long_ the sample is. It just counts if it is recognizable as being the sample from someone else. If I say "Hello" in a sample it is definitely shorter than 5 seconds. But as long as you can identify me, it is not OK to use it without permission... Sampling is a mine-field. Not only here in Germany. cu Stefan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list LMM...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/ |
From: Paul G. <dr...@gm...> - 2010-09-01 13:15:29
|
I don't believe it is valid to draw that conclusion. The problem is a lack of information, not us trying to hide evidence. Perhaps a solution is to make the samples available in a seperate package? We can constantly nag the user into downloading the sample pack. Distros could put the sample pack into nonfree repos? As far as projects.. I plan to add author and license metadata. On Sep 1, 2010 8:07 AM, "ins...@li..." <ins...@li...> wrote: > > Excuse me > but I think that the first e-mail of this thread meant being sure to have some legal statement that certifies the usability of the included samples, usability that was implicit. Now it seems it is given for accepted that these samples are taken from outside the open source dominion. > ? > > > > ----Messaggio originale---- > > Da: lou...@gm... > > Data: 1-set-2010 6.07 > > A: "Stefan Fendt"<st...@sf...> > > Cc: <lmm...@li...> > > Ogg: Re: [LMMS-devel] License for LMMS samples and plugins > > > > Stefan, I hear what you are saying, but my stance is just to not be paranoid about it. LMMS does not contain any recognizable samples. It has base drums, hihats and snares and there is seriously no way to prove that those drums are not just similarly sounding samples of basically same stuff. > > > So yeah - if it is a vocal recognizable sample - sure, you might have problems. But if it is a kick, for God's sake - who is going to recognize it, let alone sue you - there is no way to prove you've used THEIR base drum, since all of them sound generic. > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Stefan Fendt <st...@sf...> wrote: > > Am 31.08.2010 22:09, schrieb Louigi Verona: > >> Hey Thomas! > >> > >> It might be an issue for a distro, but not when you are releasing an > >> album. Certainly not when samples do not exceed 5 seconds anyway. > > > > You are — I'm sorry to say — definitely wrong. At least here in Germany > > (and most other countries in Europe have the very simmilar laws for > > that) it doesn't count how _long_ the sample is. It just counts if it is > > recognizable as being the sample from someone else. If I say "Hello" in > > a sample it is definitely shorter than 5 seconds. But as long as you can > > identify me, it is not OK to use it without permission... > > > > Sampling is a mine-field. Not only here in Germany. > > > > cu > > Stefan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: > > > > Show off your parallel programming skills. > > Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd > > _______________________________________________ > > LMMS-devel mailing list > > LMM...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > > > -- > Louigi Verona > http://www.louigiverona.ru/ > > > > > |
From: Kevin F. <kev...@ei...> - 2010-09-01 16:26:26
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, Paul Giblock wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:AAN...@ma..." type="cite"> <p>I don't believe it is valid to draw that conclusion.</p> <p>The problem is a lack of information, not us trying to hide evidence.</p> <p>Perhaps a solution is to make the samples available in a seperate package? We can constantly nag the user into downloading the sample pack. Distros could put the sample pack into nonfree repos?</p> <p>As far as projects.. I plan to add author and license metadata.<br> </p> </blockquote> There have been a ton of lawsuits against artists using short clips from other works, though I haven't heard of any related to an instrument sample. Sample CD producers and distributors are extremely protective of their work however, and often use DRM in their new releases in an attempt to avoid piracy or conversion into open formats like WAV or SF2. Reason ReFills use proprietary encryption, and many sample CDs require the use of the manufacturer's software just to use the samples.<br> <br> I suspect that if AKAI, East West, or some other big name did a side-by-side waveform comparison of an LMMS sample and one of their own they'd raise hell about it were they to match. Adding reverb or modifying the amplitude would nullify a binary match, but you can still tell if it's the same sample by aligning the crests/troughs. Also considering Microsoft's claims about Linux and OSS violating numerous patents, that would do nothing to bolster OSS's reputation as being legally safe to use.<br> <br> I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the burden of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That would show that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of protection. Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. That would also allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need for a second package.<br> <br> <div class="moz-signature">-- <br> <table style="text-align: left; width: 200px; font-family: sans-serif;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kevin Fishburne</span><br> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table style="text-align: left; width: 200px; font-family: sans-serif;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>Eight Virtues<br> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table style="text-align: left; width: 200px; font-family: sans-serif;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><font size="-1">www:<br> e-mail:<br> phone:</font></td> <td><font size="-1"> <a href="http://www.eightvirtues.com">http://www.eightvirtues.com</a><br> <a href="mailto:sa...@ei...">sa...@ei...</a><br> (770) 853-6271</font></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </body> </html> |
From: Paul G. <dr...@gm...> - 2010-09-01 17:41:37
|
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Fishburne < kev...@ei...> wrote: > I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the > burden of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That > would show that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of > protection. Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. > That would also allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need > for a second package. > While I agree with documenting the license of all files, we have a problem: backwards compatibility. What to do if we cannot determine the license of a sample currently included with LMMS? The obvious solution is: Drop it, most of the samples suck anyways. But, what about existing projects? Perhaps I want to play an old project from before the sample-cleanup. Or, perhaps I want to listen to some preset on LSP. Even if every sample that ships with LMMS is verified as "free", we still need to give the user _some_ channel to obtain the "potentially non-free" samples.With proper warnings of course. Such as "The origin of these files are unknown. Author assumes all risks by using these in a project, blah blah blah". And the second package doesn't have to be officially endorsed by us - it could be provided by a "fan". -Paul |
From: Louigi V. <lou...@gm...> - 2010-09-01 19:19:45
|
There have been a ton of lawsuits against artists using short clips from other works, though I haven't heard of any related to an instrument sample. Sample CD producers and distributors are extremely protective of their work however, and often use DRM in their new releases in an attempt to avoid piracy or conversion into open formats like WAV or SF2. Reason ReFills use proprietary encryption, and many sample CDs require the use of the manufacturer's software just to use the samples > > I suspect that if AKAI, East West, or some other big name did a > side-by-side waveform comparison of an LMMS sample and one of their own > they'd raise hell about it were they to match. Adding reverb or modifying > the amplitude would nullify a binary match, but you can still tell if it's > the same sample by aligning the crests/troughs. Also considering Microsoft's > claims about Linux and OSS violating numerous patents, that would do nothing > to bolster OSS's reputation as being legally safe to use. > > I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the > burden of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That > would show that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of > protection. Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. > That would also allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need > for a second package. > > > Hey Kevin! I disagree this is real danger for a musician. 1. Sample cds very often sample from hardware devices. There is no law which does not allow you to do that and people absolutely legally record sounds from their drum machines. Synthesizing a similar kick very often is trivial. 2. A lot of samples are very similar. Comparing byte lengths is very tedious work and mostly pointless, as even applying a volume envelope will destroy any reasonable authenticity. Trying to compare something in a mix is total rubbish and any engineer will testify to the jury that such evidence is mathematically invalid. 3. Sue cases were over sampled music, not one shot samples of under 1 secs. If this is not so, can you please point me to an exact case? I've researched that field and I have heard of no case when a musician's record would be sued for a base drum sample which he allegedly used and which he maybe did not pay for. I agree for LMMS it is safer to have totally legal samples though. So while musician need not to worry, it is nice if LMMS would clear its samples. But even then, I really doubt any real danger is for LMMS. Samples which are distributed are hardly of high quality and obviously if they are from some cd with a restrictive license, it can be argued that samples are not of high quality but mere previews. That is, if it is proven, which I do not think will ever happen. -- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.ru/ |
From: Kevin F. <kev...@ei...> - 2010-09-01 17:51:13
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> On 09/01/2010 01:41 PM, Paul Giblock wrote:<br> <blockquote cite="mid:AAN...@ma..." type="cite"> <div class="gmail_quote">While I agree with documenting the license of all files, we have a problem: backwards compatibility. What to do if we cannot determine the license of a sample currently included with LMMS? The obvious solution is: Drop it, most of the samples suck anyways. But, what about existing projects? Perhaps I want to play an old project from before the sample-cleanup. Or, perhaps I want to listen to some preset on LSP. Even if every sample that ships with LMMS is verified as "free", we still need to give the user _some_ channel to obtain the "potentially non-free" samples.With proper warnings of course. Such as "The origin of these files are unknown. Author assumes all risks by using these in a project, blah blah blah". And the second package doesn't have to be officially endorsed by us - it could be provided by a "fan".<br> </div> </blockquote> Good point. Even replacing a sample with a similar-sounding one will change the way an old project sounds. I volunteer to host the data/package and torrent on my tracker if it comes to that. They could be linked to from the LMMS web site. We could have one 32/64-bit .deb and one archive containing just the samples and directory structure for non-Debian distros.<br> <br> <div class="moz-signature">-- <br> <table style="text-align: left; width: 200px; font-family: sans-serif;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kevin Fishburne</span><br> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table style="text-align: left; width: 200px; font-family: sans-serif;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>Eight Virtues<br> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table style="text-align: left; width: 200px; font-family: sans-serif;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td><font size="-1">www:<br> e-mail:<br> phone:</font></td> <td><font size="-1"> <a href="http://www.eightvirtues.com">http://www.eightvirtues.com</a><br> <a href="mailto:sa...@ei...">sa...@ei...</a><br> (770) 853-6271</font></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </body> </html> |
From: Sascha S. <asy...@gm...> - 2010-09-01 18:30:40
|
There are a couple of samplepacks on f.e. archive.org that are under creative common license. I think to be sure, a separate team should review all samples and, if unsure, replace the samples by creative common samples. Those samples could be offered as a separate sample pack like pgib said incl. a short documentation on the licenses. OR if someone wants to publish his music, he could search own samples under creative commons. Nobody is forced to use the lmms samples. Greez, Sascha 2010/9/1 Kevin Fishburne <kev...@ei...> > On 09/01/2010 01:41 PM, Paul Giblock wrote: > > While I agree with documenting the license of all files, we have a problem: > backwards compatibility. What to do if we cannot determine the license of a > sample currently included with LMMS? The obvious solution is: Drop it, most > of the samples suck anyways. But, what about existing projects? Perhaps I > want to play an old project from before the sample-cleanup. Or, perhaps I > want to listen to some preset on LSP. Even if every sample that ships with > LMMS is verified as "free", we still need to give the user _some_ channel to > obtain the "potentially non-free" samples.With proper warnings of course. > Such as "The origin of these files are unknown. Author assumes all risks by > using these in a project, blah blah blah". And the second package doesn't > have to be officially endorsed by us - it could be provided by a "fan". > > Good point. Even replacing a sample with a similar-sounding one will change > the way an old project sounds. I volunteer to host the data/package and > torrent on my tracker if it comes to that. They could be linked to from the > LMMS web site. We could have one 32/64-bit .deb and one archive containing > just the samples and directory structure for non-Debian distros. > > > -- > Kevin Fishburne > Eight Virtues > www: > e-mail: > phone: http://www.eightvirtues.com > sa...@ei... > (770) 853-6271 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: > > Show off your parallel programming skills. > Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > |
From: Paul W. <pa...@ma...> - 2010-09-16 10:28:12
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/02/2010 02:26 AM, Kevin Fishburne wrote: > On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, Paul Giblock wrote: >> >> I don't believe it is valid to draw that conclusion. >> >> The problem is a lack of information, not us trying to hide evidence. >> >> Perhaps a solution is to make the samples available in a seperate package? We >> can constantly nag the user into downloading the sample pack. Distros could >> put the sample pack into nonfree repos? >> >> As far as projects.. I plan to add author and license metadata. >> > ... > I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the burden > of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That would show > that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of protection. > Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. That would also > allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need for a second package. I would recommend, then, that instead of trying to trace the obscure origins of the samples currently in the LMMS tree, we find new samples of known good license and use those. One example of a resource I saw for this is the OLPC Sound Samples: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sound_samples The whole collection is nearly 8GiB of uncompressed samples, and there are many different packs available, so I think there's plenty to choose from there. According to http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Music/Music_content they are "free and available for downloading and use in your music and activities" - it would be worth clarifying if they mean GFDL, CC or some other license. Packaging them up in separate files will also give downloaders a chance to choose when and how they get that 300MB sample pack... :-) Hope this helps, Paul -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyR8TEACgkQu7W0U8VsXYKf6QCbBJDXLwxEoxaxB7xSvMh67Jjx fGMAn0qmE/oSBz4YDOS0dB5JPDt/j85w =O1av -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Jonathan A. <eag...@gm...> - 2010-09-17 13:46:28
|
currently on my mac i am using logic studio which is apples music production program. one nice feature it has it allows users to create loops of instruments like rhythms etc. what do you guys think of having a similar feature in lmms where the community can give loops back to the other lmms users? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Paul Wayper <pa...@ma...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/02/2010 02:26 AM, Kevin Fishburne wrote: > > On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, Paul Giblock wrote: > >> > >> I don't believe it is valid to draw that conclusion. > >> > >> The problem is a lack of information, not us trying to hide evidence. > >> > >> Perhaps a solution is to make the samples available in a seperate > package? We > >> can constantly nag the user into downloading the sample pack. Distros > could > >> put the sample pack into nonfree repos? > >> > >> As far as projects.. I plan to add author and license metadata. > >> > > ... > > I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the > burden > > of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That > would show > > that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of > protection. > > Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. That > would also > > allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need for a second > package. > > I would recommend, then, that instead of trying to trace the obscure > origins > of the samples currently in the LMMS tree, we find new samples of known > good > license and use those. > > One example of a resource I saw for this is the OLPC Sound Samples: > > http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sound_samples > > The whole collection is nearly 8GiB of uncompressed samples, and there are > many different packs available, so I think there's plenty to choose from > there. According to http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Music/Music_content they > are > "free and available for downloading and use in your music and activities" - > it > would be worth clarifying if they mean GFDL, CC or some other license. > > Packaging them up in separate files will also give downloaders a chance to > choose when and how they get that 300MB sample pack... :-) > > Hope this helps, > > Paul > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkyR8TEACgkQu7W0U8VsXYKf6QCbBJDXLwxEoxaxB7xSvMh67Jjx > fGMAn0qmE/oSBz4YDOS0dB5JPDt/j85w > =O1av > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > -- Jonathan Aquilina |
From: Paul G. <dr...@gm...> - 2010-09-17 20:29:55
|
Can you clarify this? I thought we already support this. -Paul On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Jonathan Aquilina <eag...@gm...> wrote: > currently on my mac i am using logic studio which is apples music production > program. one nice feature it has it allows users to create loops of > instruments like rhythms etc. what do you guys think of having a similar > feature in lmms where the community can give loops back to the other lmms > users? > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Paul Wayper <pa...@ma...> wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 09/02/2010 02:26 AM, Kevin Fishburne wrote: >> > On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, Paul Giblock wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't believe it is valid to draw that conclusion. >> >> >> >> The problem is a lack of information, not us trying to hide evidence. >> >> >> >> Perhaps a solution is to make the samples available in a seperate >> >> package? We >> >> can constantly nag the user into downloading the sample pack. Distros >> >> could >> >> put the sample pack into nonfree repos? >> >> >> >> As far as projects.. I plan to add author and license metadata. >> >> >> > ... >> > I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the >> > burden >> > of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That >> > would show >> > that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of >> > protection. >> > Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. That >> > would also >> > allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need for a second >> > package. >> >> I would recommend, then, that instead of trying to trace the obscure >> origins >> of the samples currently in the LMMS tree, we find new samples of known >> good >> license and use those. >> >> One example of a resource I saw for this is the OLPC Sound Samples: >> >> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sound_samples >> >> The whole collection is nearly 8GiB of uncompressed samples, and there are >> many different packs available, so I think there's plenty to choose from >> there. According to http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Music/Music_content they >> are >> "free and available for downloading and use in your music and activities" >> - it >> would be worth clarifying if they mean GFDL, CC or some other license. >> >> Packaging them up in separate files will also give downloaders a chance to >> choose when and how they get that 300MB sample pack... :-) >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Paul >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkyR8TEACgkQu7W0U8VsXYKf6QCbBJDXLwxEoxaxB7xSvMh67Jjx >> fGMAn0qmE/oSBz4YDOS0dB5JPDt/j85w >> =O1av >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances >> and start using them to simplify application deployment and >> accelerate your shift to cloud computing. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> LMMS-devel mailing list >> LMM...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > > > -- > Jonathan Aquilina > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > |
From: Jonathan A. <eag...@gm...> - 2010-09-18 06:22:09
|
basically using base instruments you can your own rhythms that cannot be modified by the end user, the only thing then that could be modified are the effects and their settings applied to the loop. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> wrote: > Can you clarify this? I thought we already support this. > > -Paul > > On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Jonathan Aquilina > <eag...@gm...> wrote: > > currently on my mac i am using logic studio which is apples music > production > > program. one nice feature it has it allows users to create loops of > > instruments like rhythms etc. what do you guys think of having a similar > > feature in lmms where the community can give loops back to the other lmms > > users? > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Paul Wayper <pa...@ma...> > wrote: > >> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> On 09/02/2010 02:26 AM, Kevin Fishburne wrote: > >> > On 09/01/2010 09:15 AM, Paul Giblock wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I don't believe it is valid to draw that conclusion. > >> >> > >> >> The problem is a lack of information, not us trying to hide evidence. > >> >> > >> >> Perhaps a solution is to make the samples available in a seperate > >> >> package? We > >> >> can constantly nag the user into downloading the sample pack. > Distros > >> >> could > >> >> put the sample pack into nonfree repos? > >> >> > >> >> As far as projects.. I plan to add author and license metadata. > >> >> > >> > ... > >> > I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing > the > >> > burden > >> > of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That > >> > would show > >> > that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of > >> > protection. > >> > Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced. That > >> > would also > >> > allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need for a > second > >> > package. > >> > >> I would recommend, then, that instead of trying to trace the obscure > >> origins > >> of the samples currently in the LMMS tree, we find new samples of known > >> good > >> license and use those. > >> > >> One example of a resource I saw for this is the OLPC Sound Samples: > >> > >> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sound_samples > >> > >> The whole collection is nearly 8GiB of uncompressed samples, and there > are > >> many different packs available, so I think there's plenty to choose from > >> there. According to http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Music/Music_content they > >> are > >> "free and available for downloading and use in your music and > activities" > >> - it > >> would be worth clarifying if they mean GFDL, CC or some other license. > >> > >> Packaging them up in separate files will also give downloaders a chance > to > >> choose when and how they get that 300MB sample pack... :-) > >> > >> Hope this helps, > >> > >> Paul > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) > >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > >> > >> iEYEARECAAYFAkyR8TEACgkQu7W0U8VsXYKf6QCbBJDXLwxEoxaxB7xSvMh67Jjx > >> fGMAn0qmE/oSBz4YDOS0dB5JPDt/j85w > >> =O1av > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > >> and start using them to simplify application deployment and > >> accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > >> _______________________________________________ > >> LMMS-devel mailing list > >> LMM...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Aquilina > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > > accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > > _______________________________________________ > > LMMS-devel mailing list > > LMM...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > -- Jonathan Aquilina |
From: Rob <sou...@ku...> - 2010-09-18 15:46:28
|
On Saturday 18 September 2010 02:21, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > basically using base instruments you can your own rhythms that cannot be > modified by the end user, the only thing then that could be modified are > the effects and their settings applied to the loop. If your goal is to make something the end user can't tweak (for whatever reason you'd want to do that rather than just sharing your project), why not just render a WAV file and distribute that? Rob |
From: Jonathan A. <eag...@gm...> - 2010-09-18 16:15:22
|
its hard to discribe how logic studio does it, but then it has alot of other features you can tweak and have fun editing the wave form of the file etc. On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Rob <sou...@ku...> wrote: > On Saturday 18 September 2010 02:21, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > > basically using base instruments you can your own rhythms that cannot be > > modified by the end user, the only thing then that could be modified are > > the effects and their settings applied to the loop. > > If your goal is to make something the end user can't tweak (for whatever > reason you'd want to do that rather than just sharing your project), why > not just render a WAV file and distribute that? > > Rob > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > -- Jonathan Aquilina |