Rules about using GPL'd music

[mgiuca]

Hello folks. I've been wondering for awhile what the Wesnoth policy is on using music and other assets in other works. The fact that they are GPL-licensed seems like a pretty awkward situation, legally, since the GPL is a license for computer programs.

First, I wanted to address the general intentions of the community towards using assets in other work. For example, my brother makes movies for his university project, and he wants to incorporate some music from Wesnoth (attributed of course, and non-commercial). This this something encouraged by the community, or is it generally frowned upon?

Second, I wanted to address the legality of borrowing assets. I found this topic: Suitability of GPL for assets but couldn't reply there. I'm pretty confused about how the GPL is applied to assets in this instance. There's a discussion on that thread about what constitutes source. As an outsider, I have to agree with the original poster there -- it seems like the GPL is inappropriate for content like this, and a CC license would be much better suited.

The GPL FAQ states "You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work." This is defined as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." The license continues, "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." I would say it is quite unclear what constitutes "source code" for the graphics and audio assets of Wesnoth.

This would imply that for music, distributing the final .ogg files is insufficient, as is distributing the sheet music (as it doesn't enable you to re-compile the final music). Therefore, am I violating the GPL if I distribute music in .ogg format, without the accompanying "source code" (I suppose, the MIDI or other note data formats)? Furthermore, is there an issue, for example, if my brother uses Wesnoth music in his movie, and does not release the movie under the GPL? (As the GPL is "viral", including one GPL component in another requires that the final product be GPL as well.) Does he then have to release his production files and anything else which might be construed to be "source code"? I'm sure he would be happy to release it under a CC-by-sa license, but being infected by the GPL doesn't make much sense for non-programs.

Just wondering if I could see what the community's views on this are (and whether the intentions of the community are in line with the license).

[eyerouge]

I'm not a lawyer, nor would I want to be one, but here are my two cents for what it's worth:

First, I wanted to address the general intentions of the community towards using assets in other work.

1. Which community? The BfW one? Or the GPL one? Or the open source one? I just gave three examples which all have their common denominators, overlaps as well as differences.

2. Personally I'd recommend you to ignore what a/the community thinks about anything at all if you'd let it be decisive in any way, as most of the communities on the nets are made up of very diverse people with different understandings of the licenses, their purposes, ideological backgrounds, opinions and whatnot. Odds that a lawyer would give you free and legit advice in a forum by "accident" is zero to none A majority of most communities members are just common people like me & you(?) and are more often than not clueless when it comes to these topics. Besides, what matters is not how popular your ideas happen to be within a given context unless you're running for election . Instead, I think you should concentrate on grasping the legal bits, and focus on the project at hand. It will generally take you way further than listening to a zillion voice in cyberspace.

3. The GPL:s "community" believes that re-usage & "derivatives" equals salvation. It's a good thing, and would generally be approved and liked. Granted of course, no license(s) were violated. After all, GPL is not the same as Public Domain.

For example, my brother makes movies for his university project, and he wants to incorporate some music from Wesnoth (attributed of course, and non-commercial). This this something encouraged by the community, or is it generally frowned upon?

I think I answered that above. What the Wesnoth community feels is also irrelevant, in the same manner my feelings are. (Another problem is who/what is the BfW community, or any community for that matter - is it whoever happened to stop by and jot down a reply to your thread? Or a majority of the users? Or of the active users? Or the developers? Interesting topic, albeit for another time..)

Personally I'd encourage you to use any GPL work anywhere you can/find it useful as long as you don't violate the license(s) involved. I also have a hard time imagining that anyone in here would "frown" upon you/him doing so, but then again - I don't write on behalf of this community as it hasn't chosen me as a representative of anything.

There's a discussion on that thread about what constitutes source. As an outsider, I have to agree with the original poster there -- it seems like the GPL is inappropriate for content like this, and a CC license would be much better suited.

CC and GPL could be described as very similar and/or very different, all depending on the intentions and purpose & usage of a work. As an exampe, you mention that your brothers project is non-commercial. While that may matter for some CC-licenses, it doesn't matter much for the GPL license: It's perfectly legal for you to i.e. sell Wesnoth to whoever wants to buy it (given you meet certain conditions outlined in the GPL) and then keep all the money yourself. The same goes for your brothers movie.

And yes, most artists will find CC-variants to be much easier to use as they are probably easier to interpret & understand, and were also made for that type of content in contrast to the GPL. That said, the GPL's "source code" can be defined pretty much however you want it to be in the license - it's up to the author(s) of the work to add that clarification to the license somewhere, I think. Thus, it's not really a problem to release music or a picture using the GPL.

This is defined as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

As you state, sources for graphics and music are not to be found within the Wesnoth SVN:s etc. I also suspect that you would not get them all even if you asked for them, for several different reasons which I won't go into here as I'm not behind the BfW-scenes and lack info about the details. I know however that this topic has been raised at least once before in the forum and that it lacked decent/clarifying answers then.

That said, there are many ways to create i.e. music or a picture. While the "preferred form" would be to create superb vector art (or would it? According to who's preferences?) most (all?) of the time the art is raster in Wesnoth. A track could be made within excellent software, or, we could just record an orchestra playing it for us live and then include it in the game as GPL, having no source short of jumping into a time machine and watching the orchestra play.

All of these methods are non-probelmatic and legit. The GPL doesn't force you to use a certain method, nor does it explicitly define what the most preferable form is, even if we all have our suspicions here As far as I know there haven't been any amazing legal cases about these technical issues. Sufficient to say, Wesnoth is also not the only project where these questions have been asked.

I would say it is quite unclear what constitutes "source code" for the graphics and audio assets of Wesnoth

I don't think it matters much, as "source code" can still be replaced by other wording in the license, if the devs choose to. That's why the question about what's "source code" when viewing an elf picture or listening to the excellent BfW music makes less sense.

What comes closest to the "source code equiavalent" would of course be the Photoshop/GIMP file, properly layered etc (if it ever was so in the original state), in it's fullest resolution and so on. And the comparable for music files, including the usage of VST:s, settings, samples and so on. Then again, who knows how the original files were created: Maybe it was just an orchestra and a mic, and one single layer in some obscure program, in which case 99% of the population wouldn't be able to even open the "source" file anyway.

This would imply that for music, distributing the final .ogg files is insufficient, as is distributing the sheet music (as it doesn't enable you to re-compile the final music).

Yes, it could imply that. And there are others in the forum that have done the same interpretation as you. But as I might have shown above, the matter is not really that simple and the conclusion doesn't always follow.

Furthermore, is there an issue, for example, if my brother uses Wesnoth music in his movie, and does not release the movie under the GPL? (As the GPL is "viral", including one GPL component in another requires that the final product be GPL as well.)

Some versions of the GPL probably allow your brother to use a GPLx-licensed work in your brothers movie without forcing him to GPL the movie, as long as he doesn't distribute/share the movie with the public and only watches it himself in private. I don't know how valid this interpretation is, nor do I claim it's correct, but it's a very common one nevertheless.

Does he then have to release his production files and anything else which might be construed to be "source code"?

Just to mention the obvious: How can anyone know that there even exists more material than what is in his movie? Your brother could always claim that the movie is all there is - there were no other scenes etc etc.

Also, don't forget that your brother, as the creator of the movie, doesn't need to GPL all his scenes or raw material and everything he actually recorded for the movie: He can just choose to put the finished movie under the GPL. It's perfectly legal to do so.

(Compare this with me writing a program. I write it, then rewrite it, and then once more. And now I decide to release it in it's current state under the GPL. There is nothing that forces me to share the earlier versions of it with the world using the same license. As far as I know, I can even multi-license it if need would arise, but let's not go into that one...)

I'm sure he would be happy to release it under a CC-by-sa license, but being infected by the GPL doesn't make much sense for non-programs.

GPL can make a lot of sense for non-programs if properly used. It doesn't automagically mean it's the best license for your brother (i.e. he can find zillion tracks with the CC-search engine or on Jamendo etc). Also, what you call "infection" is in reality a feature One of the many reasons to use the license in the first place even.

[stikonas]

What comes closest to the "source code equiavalent" would of course be the Photoshop/GIMP file, properly layered etc (if it ever was so in the original state), in it's fullest resolution and so on. And the comparable for music files, including the usage of VST:s, settings, samples and so on. Then again, who knows how the original files were created: Maybe it was just an orchestra and a mic, and one single layer in some obscure program, in which case 99% of the population wouldn't be able to even open the "source" file anyway.

There are some properly layered GIMP files in the SVN repository (maps, logo). And somebody is slowly working on the SVG version of Wesnoth logo.

[eyerouge]

There are some properly layered GIMP files in the SVN repository (maps, logo). And somebody is slowly working on the SVG version of Wesnoth logo.

Yes, true. With emphasis on some. That is also not something that is on any roadmap that I know of when it comes to the rest of the artistic resources as music or art, and in the end they make up 99,x% of the artistic content when put into relation to the BfW logo and the Wesnoth map.

I don't think this has much effect on the subject at hand (his/her questions) though, even if it is indeed an interesting topic which I'm sure there is a lot to say about from several perspectives.

[mgiuca]

Hi, it's been awhile since I came back here. Thanks for a great reply, eyerouge. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner. My brother decided not to use the BfW music, but I still think it's an important debate which this community doesn't seem to have had properly yet.

First, I wanted to address the general intentions of the community towards using assets in other work.

1. Which community? The BfW one? Or the GPL one? Or the open source one? I just gave three examples which all have their common denominators, overlaps as well as differences.

Well, the BfW one. When you have a license, you can be strict about it and follow the letter of the law, but when you're working with a community, what is really more important than the letter of the license is "going with the grain" of the community. If you do something which is strictly within the license but pisses off the community (like the recent BfW iPhone saga), that can be a bad thing. (If you do something which the community is okay with, but against the license, that is also a bad thing, so you really need to satisfy both conditions.) So I wanted to see whether musicians in BfW, for example, would be happy to have their music used (cited of course) in other works, or if they feel it was intended for this game and there it should stay.

2. Personally I'd recommend you to ignore what a/the community thinks about anything at all if you'd let it be decisive in any way, as most of the communities on the nets are made up of very diverse people with different understandings of the licenses, their purposes, ideological backgrounds, opinions and whatnot. Odds that a lawyer would give you free and legit advice in a forum by "accident" is zero to none A majority of most communities members are just common people like me & you(?) and are more often than not clueless when it comes to these topics. Besides, what matters is not how popular your ideas happen to be within a given context unless you're running for election . Instead, I think you should concentrate on grasping the legal bits, and focus on the project at hand. It will generally take you way further than listening to a zillion voice in cyberspace.

Yeah I definitely agree there. Having said what I just said above, after having a general overview of the community's intentions, it is important that your actions when using copyrighted material are permitted by the license. I'm not really trying to get a legal opinion. I'm more interested in figuring out what the people who chose the license in the first place had in mind -- what their interpretation of it is.

If there is no straight answer to what is really a fundamental question in any license: "Can I take work X under license Y and use it in work A under license B", then there is a problem with license Y (or work X's use of it). In other words, you have a whole community of volunteers who are licensing their work in a certain way without really understanding what rights they are granting to others. It would be better, I think, for a composer or artist working on Wesnoth if (s)he had a clear understanding of what they are permitting others to do with his/her work.

Now it's very clear that if I took a piece of code from BfW and used it in my own program, then I would be required to release my whole program under the GPLv2. What isn't clear is if I take a piece of music from BfW and use it in my movie, am I required to release the movie under the GPL? What if I use the music in my game? Do I have to release a) just that music and any changes I make to it under the GPL? b) all of the music in the game? c) the entire game source code? I believe it isn't clear, because GPL specifically talks about "source code" and "linking", which don't have good definitions when applied to music or artwork.

3. The GPL:s "community" believes that re-usage & "derivatives" equals salvation. It's a good thing, and would generally be approved and liked. Granted of course, no license(s) were violated. After all, GPL is not the same as Public Domain.

Yeah so the GPL/FSF view is that you should make derivative works, but you must license them under the GPL. It's unclear to what extent the GPL spreads across different medium (music, code).

CC and GPL could be described as very similar and/or very different, all depending on the intentions and purpose & usage of a work. As an exampe, you mention that your brothers project is non-commercial. While that may matter for some CC-licenses, it doesn't matter much for the GPL license: It's perfectly legal for you to i.e. sell Wesnoth to whoever wants to buy it (given you meet certain conditions outlined in the GPL) and then keep all the money yourself. The same goes for your brothers movie.

And yes, most artists will find CC-variants to be much easier to use as they are probably easier to interpret & understand, and were also made for that type of content in contrast to the GPL. That said, the GPL's "source code" can be defined pretty much however you want it to be in the license - it's up to the author(s) of the work to add that clarification to the license somewhere, I think. Thus, it's not really a problem to release music or a picture using the GPL.

Right, well maybe part of the problem is that at least with BfW, that hasn't been clarified (as you discuss in detail below).

This would imply that for music, distributing the final .ogg files is insufficient, as is distributing the sheet music (as it doesn't enable you to re-compile the final music).

Yes, it could imply that. And there are others in the forum that have done the same interpretation as you. But as I might have shown above, the matter is not really that simple and the conclusion doesn't always follow.

Right. My point exactly -- I'm not trying to say that BfW people should have released more source material. My point is that the GPL is an inappropriate license for the content precisely because the matter is very complicated when applied to non-software.

Some versions of the GPL probably allow your brother to use a GPLx-licensed work in your brothers movie without forcing him to GPL the movie, as long as he doesn't distribute/share the movie with the public and only watches it himself in private. I don't know how valid this interpretation is, nor do I claim it's correct, but it's a very common one nevertheless.

Sure, all versions of the GPL place no restrictions on your private use ("The act of running the Program is not restricted"). I'm assuming he's going to distribute it, e.g., on YouTube.

The major problem is that a strict reading of the GPL would imply that my brother would have to release his movie under the GPLv2, as it is a derivative work. The GPL states that "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." While he could license it under the GPL, that causes the same problems again -- anyone who wants to make a derivative of his film needs to ask the same questions: "Do I have to use the GPL? What is the source code?"

Also, don't forget that your brother, as the creator of the movie, doesn't need to GPL all his scenes or raw material and everything he actually recorded for the movie: He can just choose to put the finished movie under the GPL. It's perfectly legal to do so.

Not quite true. He certainly doesn't need to release anything he created then deleted (as you say, that's just the history which doesn't need to be licensed). But the files I'm talking about are production files -- for example, Blender models which are used in the final film. These are the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

In the same way, if I write a program derived from BfW, I can't "just choose to put the finished binary" under the GPL. I am required to put the source code too.

GPL can make a lot of sense for non-programs if properly used. It doesn't automagically mean it's the best license for your brother (i.e. he can find zillion tracks with the CC-search engine or on Jamendo etc). Also, what you call "infection" is in reality a feature One of the many reasons to use the license in the first place even.

Yeah, I get that the infection is a feature. But CC-by-sa is also infectious, in most ways it's similar to the GPL, but it doesn't contain nonsensical concepts (for non-software) like "source code".

Anyway, thanks for having a well-thought out response.

[Iris]

My brother decided not to use the BfW music, but I still think it's an important debate which this community doesn't seem to have had properly yet.

It might be because public forums are generally open to noise from unexperienced people trying to assist in the wrong manner, which is something we've had multiple times in the past.

There is, after all, a reason for the existence of a policy on legal discussions.

(This is just something to keep in mind, i.e. a reminder. I'm not saying anything is being violated by anyone.)