1
Feedback & Suggestions / Re: Update Public Domain license to the up-to-date and valid CC0 license
« on: June 28, 2016, 02:44:39 »
Much obliged 
- April 24, 2024, 00:43:09
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Please note: Your main modarchive.org account will not work here, you must create a forum account to post on the forums.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Feedback & Suggestions / Re: Update Public Domain license to the up-to-date and valid CC0 license
« on: June 27, 2016, 13:12:07 »
Thanks!
While I don't really care about that bad module of mine, could you change its license from "Public Domain" to CC0?
While I don't really care about that bad module of mine, could you change its license from "Public Domain" to CC0?
3
Feedback & Suggestions / Re: Update Public Domain license to the up-to-date and valid CC0 license
« on: June 04, 2016, 19:37:47 »You cannot simply e.g. tighten your license and prevent people from using an older version of the software / code under the original license, though.
True. Practically all common free software / free culture licenses grant you irrevocable usage under those terms. That's always been a pretty important sticking point for proponents of these licenses.
There has been some unpleasant stuff going on on YouTube in the past where exactly this happened, musicians first releasing their music under CC-BY, then changing their minds and screwing over people who used their music for monetized videos.
Oh, I haven't heard about that. That's...pretty bad, yes.
Of course, there's a lot of icky stuff happening on YouTube anyway, with people being able to claim other's content and collect ad revenue, the content ID matching system not being able to handle CC stuff correctly, etc. It's all very broken. Some of it has been a bit mitigated recently, but far from enough.
However, of course it would be possible to "update" the license the other way around (e.g. CC-BY-NC-SA -> CC-BY)
Oh, right, yes, loosening the terms should be quite safe to do, yeah.
Up to a point, though: consider a work licensed under CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution, NonCommercial, ShareAlike), and a derivative work created by a third party. Since the license included the ShareAlike clause, the derivative work also falls under CC BY-NC-SA. Then original work relicenses, loosening the terms by dropping the NonCommercial clause, making it CC BY-SA. This removal of the NonCommercial is of course not automatically transferred to the derivative work, which stays CC BY-NC-SA if its author so chooses. So this case might introduce a few documentation difficulties, so to speak.
Yeah, I know, this is just completely hypothetical here.
I'll look into adding CC0 to the set of licenses, though.
Thanks.
4
Feedback & Suggestions / Re: Update Public Domain license to the up-to-date and valid CC0 license
« on: June 04, 2016, 03:49:15 »
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. But I have some experience with licenses from a software perspective. Still, this is not legal advise.
The original author(s) can of course always change the licensing terms as they see fit, especially when they introduce changes. They wholy own the work, after all. However, earlier versions of the work could still be distributed under the old licensing terms (but modarchive doesn't have to carry both versions).
While maybe not that common in the music field, this does happen in the software world, with software projects changing license after all copyright owners (i.e. people who contributed non-trivial, active code) agreed on the change. Depending on the number of copyright owners, this can be relatively difficult, though.
Me, I'd really appreciated that. especially since the "Public Domain" license was retired for a reason. It's not really applicable to many jurisdictions, since they might not have the concept of a public domain. And even in the US, putting something into the public domain like that isn't really possible. Things fall into the public domain regulated by some strict rules instead. In short, the license might not hold in court, with the original author possibly being able to argue that the terms are void and a third party shouldn't have been able to use the work as they did. Yes, highly unlikely to happen, but still a theoretical possibility.
That's also why CC0, the recommended "public domain" license, has lawyer-approved language that gives the license a fallback with terms that effectively make the work "public domain", even if that concept does not exist in the target jurisdiction or the work wouldn't normally fall under it.
Moreover, the retired "public domain" license is laking explicit waiving of implied warranties, which are a thing in certain jurisdictions (the US included). Unless waived, you guarantee the work is fit for its advertised purpose, free of severe faults, etc. That's what the common "AS IS" blurb you so often see is for.
So, to recap, I'd really like to see a CC0 option for uploads (and the old "public domain" option to disappear). A way to change a license would be great as well, maybe with a visible history (i.e. license X from date - date, license Y now), but I can see how that might be difficult. But letting an author update the old "public domain" license to CC0 should be workable, since CC0 is what the "public domain" license was supposed to express anyway.
Additionally you can't just 'update a license' for any items already released, the licenses are stuck to them
The original author(s) can of course always change the licensing terms as they see fit, especially when they introduce changes. They wholy own the work, after all. However, earlier versions of the work could still be distributed under the old licensing terms (but modarchive doesn't have to carry both versions).
While maybe not that common in the music field, this does happen in the software world, with software projects changing license after all copyright owners (i.e. people who contributed non-trivial, active code) agreed on the change. Depending on the number of copyright owners, this can be relatively difficult, though.
however we will consider inserting the CC0 license as an option
Me, I'd really appreciated that. especially since the "Public Domain" license was retired for a reason. It's not really applicable to many jurisdictions, since they might not have the concept of a public domain. And even in the US, putting something into the public domain like that isn't really possible. Things fall into the public domain regulated by some strict rules instead. In short, the license might not hold in court, with the original author possibly being able to argue that the terms are void and a third party shouldn't have been able to use the work as they did. Yes, highly unlikely to happen, but still a theoretical possibility.
That's also why CC0, the recommended "public domain" license, has lawyer-approved language that gives the license a fallback with terms that effectively make the work "public domain", even if that concept does not exist in the target jurisdiction or the work wouldn't normally fall under it.
Moreover, the retired "public domain" license is laking explicit waiving of implied warranties, which are a thing in certain jurisdictions (the US included). Unless waived, you guarantee the work is fit for its advertised purpose, free of severe faults, etc. That's what the common "AS IS" blurb you so often see is for.
So, to recap, I'd really like to see a CC0 option for uploads (and the old "public domain" option to disappear). A way to change a license would be great as well, maybe with a visible history (i.e. license X from date - date, license Y now), but I can see how that might be difficult. But letting an author update the old "public domain" license to CC0 should be workable, since CC0 is what the "public domain" license was supposed to express anyway.
5
Help Support Topics Archive / Become an artist account
« on: June 03, 2016, 04:10:01 »
Hej!
Back in the early 2000s, I played around with Impulse Tracker and created some (horrible) songs. Unfortunately, I even uploaded one of those horrors, a version of Jingle Bells: http://modarchive.org/module.php?39653 . Interestingly, it since became misattributed to Dave McCool (probably because he used the same filename prefix I did).
Now, I'm not particularily proud of that song (or that instrument text) and would rather have it deleted, but since you don't delete files, it seems, I'd like to at least not shame Dave McCool with my talentlessness. So if you could change my account (DrMcCoy, profile ID 90740, same email as here on the forums) to an "artist" (to use that term loosely) account and assign that song to me, that would be great. Thanks.
Back in the early 2000s, I played around with Impulse Tracker and created some (horrible) songs. Unfortunately, I even uploaded one of those horrors, a version of Jingle Bells: http://modarchive.org/module.php?39653 . Interestingly, it since became misattributed to Dave McCool (probably because he used the same filename prefix I did).
Now, I'm not particularily proud of that song (or that instrument text) and would rather have it deleted, but since you don't delete files, it seems, I'd like to at least not shame Dave McCool with my talentlessness. So if you could change my account (DrMcCoy, profile ID 90740, same email as here on the forums) to an "artist" (to use that term loosely) account and assign that song to me, that would be great. Thanks.
6
Help Support Topics Archive / Re: Re: duplicate modules
« on: June 02, 2016, 05:51:27 »
Skaven252's Realm of Chaos exists three times:
http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=36192
http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=70451
http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=56295
The last one is even misattributed to Purple Motion.
http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=36192
http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=70451
http://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=56295
The last one is even misattributed to Purple Motion.
Pages: [1]