R.Bridge 1750 free organ set
Hi everyone.
I uploaded on a special page my latest creation of an organ set (1m) with harpsichord compass, especially well suited for piano players or anyway those who are using 88 keys controllers.
Nevertheless it can be used with any kinda setup.
There are a lot to be discovered , so go here :
http://www.panosvirtual.org/BridgePage.html
Any feedback, welcome !
Enjoy,
Panos
*It's like a fight with women, which always ends in .... bed.*
F.Kafka, Aphorisms.
This license statement is a contradiction.License.
The whole package comes as is, it is free and not for commercial
use and distribution, under GNU v3 GPL, but, do not place it as is, on your
site for download, just link to my place, where you got it, do not
redistribute it anywhere. Except if you do a derived work based on it. Do
not forget to mention its first creator and copy this document with yours.
I suggest you to re-read the GPL and to rethink your license. If you want restrictions, Creative commons is probably better.
GPLv3 allows redistribution. With the current license statement, I don't see any reason, which prohibits redistribution - your statement about this in conjunction with the GPL is more like a non-binding request.
PS:
I look at your other GO sample sets and they show similar issues.
Last edited by e9925248; Jan-30-2012 at 23:07.
Hi e9925248,
Thanks for this... It must be a left over from my previous GNUv3 jOrgan sets. As I don't want to mess up things I will probably set this organ under GNUv3 too.
There's a case with my Russell set where I found it in a site without saying where this organ came from .... but anyway, my name is on the virtual console as the contact info in the read me text.
There's a whole work to do to change pdf and site page, so don't expect this to happen' untill tomorrow as here in Athens is kinda late night :-)
GO sets , you mean Obersteigen and Sant Jeroni... :-)
There's no official declaration of my site.... yet cause I'm still uploading stuff. But I'll take a look on these too, as there's quite a time back when these two were created. Also GO page is under development too. More things to be added.
Thanks again :-)
Best
Panos
PS. Did you like the disposition? Are ther any issues with the installers?
*It's like a fight with women, which always ends in .... bed.*
F.Kafka, Aphorisms.
The spirit of the GPL is sharing and the user should always be allowed to modify it.Originally Posted by Ghekorg7
GPLv3 clause 7b allows to add clauses to keep attributions. So explicitly requiring to state somewhere inside the organ package, that you create the organ, is not a problem.
GPLv3 clause 5d can be used to keep a copyright statement in the GUI.
I doubt, that the GPLv3 can be used to force a specific presention on a download site (so eg. to state there, that you createded the organ).
The GPL is not anti-commercial (GPLv3 clause 4: "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey"), but each recipient may start redistributing it at any price he chooses.
Public use or recording should be possible with a GPLv3 sampleset. An interessing question (for a lawyer) is, if these use cases create a derived work and/or "binary" versions (according to the GPL license text).
Combinations of the GPLv3 with other non-permissive licenses can be problematic: You can't grant permissions via GPL, if the licenses of the base work does not allow it. Eg: the jeuxdorgues license requires the authors permission before each redistribution - by putting it in a GPL package, you state, that redistribution is allowed without any such statement.
Hi,
Interesting discussion, though maybe kinda OT, as I expected more technical feedback, nevetheless it deals with Bridge licence, so...
As you may know I'm a lawer also as a musician.
My aim with Bridge was and still is, this :
Create a free organ set for jOrgan (disposition) with many features that we find today in expensive sets and showing the power of jOrgan to do it.
Then, anyone to be able to play and record with it and if he/she likes to do also commercial productions with.
But not to sell the package ( the instrument) as I do not sell it. And link to my page only for download (= get an instrument to play, no matter if it is soft or hard).
For fellow organ sets developers to be able to do a derived work from it if they like and just glue my documents along with theirs, for the history series.
So simple. But as other things may happen I added the GNU v3 GPL as the main base for these things. > now I set just GNUv3 GPL to ease things :-)
The above exception, ie having as a base a given public legal agreement (like GNU v3 GPL) and do some small exceptions from it, stating exactly which, is completely legal in Greece (as in many Civil Law cases about agreements) and AFAIK in many EU countries (Greek Civil Law has its base on the French one and on the German one in some cases).
If GNUv3 GPL is not anti-commercial as you inform (clause 4) , then this means I can repackage (or change some minor stuff) Sven's jOrgan 3.14 and sell it at a price I choose in a fancy web page and gain money from Sven's work who gains nothing !!!
That possibly means that if I choose to sell my stuff under GNUv3 at a given price then the recipant can sell it at a different price.
But this mess up things. As I 'm selling my package that's 1/2 or 1/4 mine, because is based on some other people's work who do not charge for it.
I know Joseph's licence, as also Nick's, that's why I added them into Obersteigen set which contains samples from both authors, reworked by me into another theme.
So in this new theme these two licences apply as well.
Recordings. No issues, if we set things more simple :
Record from Bridge as is > it is not a derived work, because it has nothing changed on main engine, GUI ect. It's like playing with my Yamaha Motif ES-6 synthesizer a piece. This recording is a deriative work from Motif ?? No. It's a recording made with an instrument. The same with Bridge set, using all its functions.
Altering samples, adding ones, change GUI, icons add more FX ect > mean deriative work.
There is a case where a free software instrument in its licence does not allow free uploaded recordings, for example. I do not agree philosophicaly with this, but I respect this licence and do not publish recordings, hoping that the authors some day will change it :-)
Let's talk more...
Best
Panos
*It's like a fight with women, which always ends in .... bed.*
F.Kafka, Aphorisms.
I'm not a lawyer - but I have had lots of interest in the Debian license handling (they enforce a very strict, clean policy).
I don't negate, that it possible to reference a base license and then modify it.
The GPLv3 has a nice feature to handle such things:
So you include the permission to remove your restrictions.All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
I was not sure, how much time you have spend understanding the GPL license text. I just wanted to point out, that the GPL does not restrict this.
As anybody can start re-distributing the bought versions for free, its possible to disrupt this behaviour.
There is one exception, where this does not work: Enterprise linux distributions sell support contracts, which provides updates of GPL programs. Redistibuting is likely to terminate them, so you will not find these on the internet.
The question is, if the package forms one work or your sample set is a distribution of seperate works.under different licenses ("aggregate").
In the first case, the GPL would also cover the samples too and therefore the bases licenses need to be GPL compatible.
Hi!
Nice work Panos! Please consider making GO versions of your sets also! I know it's some more work but I think it's worth it in every way.
Otherwise I just wanted to jump in on the licensing discussion. Personally I find Creative commons better suited for samplesets than GNU/GPL that's intended mostly for code. Anyway, it's perfectly correct that anyone can resell a program that's GNU/GPL licensed to anyone else, but it's rather conuterproductive as it's possible to share/distribute (modify etc) at any price (for free!) for the one that receives the product (and GNU/GPL does state that the sourcecode must be freely available, the resulting binary can be sold.
I guess that few persons would consider buying my LoopAuditioneer from someone else as long as it's possible to download it for free from me at sourceforge... But it's not impossible according to the licensing. However one must acknowledge that even the download does cost someone somthing! And the media that the program is distributed on can cost something too!
I had a brief discussion with Nick Appleton recently on licensing issues for samples/samplesets and he also finally decided to use CC for the licensing. He went on BY-NC-SA while I decided to use BY-SA not preventing commercial use. There are quite a few other versions as well.
The interesting issue could be if someone wants to make a recording with any sampleset I've made (thus a derivative work) it's a bit fruitless to try to sell that as the recording should still need to use the same CC BY-SA license that my original samplesets have, permitting free use, modifications, redistribution etc... But it sure is allowed to do!
Remember also that once a work is released under a certain license like GNU/GPL or CC, you can stop distributing the work under that license yourself and use another one instead, but you cannot stop others to continue distributing the originally licensed work under that original license that they received the work with!
Kind regards
Lars P
Hi Lars !
Thanks for your kind words.
Yes, it would be nice to create a set of Bridge small organ for GO. Especially for v0303 as it can accept 24/48000 and images and some other little gems :-)
It will need more work, as for sf2 I've made 3 samples per octave and GO needs full keyboard.... hmmm
e9925248, you're right about my Obersteigen set, as I do not know if Joseph's licence goes well with Nick's.... I don't care for mine as I will follow. I'm gona get in touch with both of them to ask their view on the matter, since my site is not publicaly declared operational yet.
Thanks for the licence discussion, Lars.
After your thoughts and e9925248's it is clear that Creative Commons is best for sample sets, yes.
I went for GNUv3GPL, because, I thought , it would be fair to Sven, as jOrgan 3.14 is released under GNUv3GPL. Of course there's no such restriction, ie one can use the under GNUv3 software and release the set under whatever he likes.
For example, my friend Bernd Casper, has a very personal licence on his sets for jOrgan, which is smart and clean.
One thing that I disagree : Playing and recording with a given sample set doesn't mean deriative work.Explain :
I see a softeware based instrument as an instrument, not a program ect
For example : I have a Motif synthesizer. This is a harware instrument, but it has inside a certain sofware. I'm recording with this a piece. I can free distribute it or sell it.
The same with software : I get a laptop (harware engine and soundcard, also audio output and screen), a keyboard controller, a VSTinstrument, commercial or free with licence to do music. I play and record a piece. Upload free or sell.
It's the same.
I do not own Yamaha's samples in Motif and my recordings are not deriative works from. They are mine, because I choose the sounds, I play with my hands and heart, I do my personal mix and sell, or free upload.
Virtual organs and other VST ect are modern instruments. Target is music. Not technology.
So if I get a lap, GrandOrgue, your Burea Ago, a 3m/p console and two active speakers, I just constructed an instrument and I can do whatever I want with this, regarding music production, or live performances. I do not own Lap's software, GO software, Burea samples and 3m/p software, but the instrument that came from all these is mine, so with this instrument I can do what I like, in public or at home.
If I resample and sell or rectify the samples ect it's another story though, I'm not refering to this.
Aim is and always must be Music. Music spread around the whole world, the means to do it are secondary issues. Concentrating mainly on technical stuff hides from us the target. :-)
For this productive discussion I thank you both.
Yes, if I'll change type of licence, it will be for future works. For the so far sets, it is wise to leave as is, for the reason Lars stated clearly.
Best
Panos
GO trunk supports retuning samples via ODF up to 1200 cent (= 1 octave) [PitchTuning - please ask, if you need help]. So even only one sample per octave ODF is possible. GO uses linear interpolation, so check the audio quality first.
If most sample set producers agree on CC, then yes as it allows easy combination of the sample sets.
You could write an statement to allow this (if all integrated works allow this too). You should be very, very, very careful with the wording, so that that it can't be used by some creative people to escape from the CC license.
If I would prefere a different license and could legally relicense, I would relicense.
If you release new CC sets and relicense the old under CC too (or dual-license them), they can be combind into one larger set - a combination of GPL+CC raises new questions.
Thanks e9925248.
To get full 12 samples per octave I'm usually working with Reaper4 and its Elastique pro 2.1 and/or Sony Sourceforge 9. I'm very pleased with the resoults.
And now that I'm thinking again I'll probably do Bridge for GO. It will be fun.
I did some tuning with GOv0303, works nice, yes.
Ah, I'm not intend to combine licences. It's gonna be messy.....Simply all future works will go under CC, for , as you say, seems that the majority of free sample sets producers tend to accept it for their work. And yes this way will be easier to combine sets, later. For example a new GO set with samples from Burea and GO version of Bridge.
Hi!
Quite correct. With a CC BY-SA you can even make any commercial use of the set, but in my interpretation of the legal code (I don't know if someone has really tested this in a court yet...) any derivative work (and any recording of already recorded samples must be a kind of derivative work, artistic or not) should be licensed with the same license (CC BY-SA).So if I get a lap, GrandOrgue, your Burea Ago, a 3m/p console and two active speakers, I just constructed an instrument and I can do whatever I want with this, regarding music production, or live performances. I do not own Lap's software, GO software, Burea samples and 3m/p software, but the instrument that came from all these is mine, so with this instrument I can do what I like, in public or at home.
The very spirit of the license is to enable a user to freely use the work in any way they wish but to ensure that it always will be free to others and that the original creator(s) will be acknowledged.
I can agree that it's not perfectly clear if an artistic performance on the samplesets should be called a derivative work or not, but that's how I percieve it. After all, if you buy a hardware instrument then the use of it is not licensed under a CC BY-SA, but the samplesets are... If not that was the case then one could end up in a discussion if a re-recording of the samples is a performance or not, which it of course is not! Neither is a combination of the samples in any way nothing more than a derivative work of the samples themselves.
Let's say it like this: as long as the user does not wish to license the end product in another more restrictive way than the original license, then I won't have any problem with the use of it. I don't expect this to be a great problem either, as the spirit of the vpo community rather is to share and a true organist worthy his name will rather wish to record the performance directly on the real analog live organ instead!
My own main interest in the vpo has always been to have a usable practise instrument at home myself, and to further the interest in the organ as an extraordinary instrument for the rest of the world. All of the organ world would benefit if the interest in the instrument increases!
Kind regards
Lars P
Hi,
to give a practical example: I created an iOS app which uses Lars' Kalvträsk package (see http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id488756266?mt=8). The application is free and will stay free, but the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license would have allowed a commercial use also, and I can add non-free additional functions in future versions of the application.
As a licensee, i.e. a creator of a derived work, I must put the derived work (my app) under the same or an equivalent license, which means that any work derived from the app can be used for any purpose, free or commercially, as long as it is published with the same or an equivalent license. Derived works could be: Public performances, recordings, automatic organ players (in combination with MIDI sequencers), MIDI expanders built around iOS devices, ...
I think the CC licenses, commercial and non-commercial, are a good thing. They allow flexible use of a work while still giving credit to the creator of the original work.
Markus
A quick one as I'm rushing to go.....
So we can agree that if someone wants to record organ music with a vpo and sell it must have a commercial software (so far only Hautpwerk...) and a commercial set that its licence gives the right to record and sell . This is the only unquestionable option so far.
On this second the funny thing is that one goes and buy a commercial set for almost 1000euros and he finds out that he cannot use it in public !!!!! more even to sell music !!!!!!! Hey this is madness.....
I'll be back later guys and will tell you some thoughts of mine about modern instruments and some things about Courts... as I'm in almost everyday :-)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote