Source code for Wesnoth music?

[mgoetze]

Hi guys,

I was thinking about where I could get some freely redistributable music for a music mod for Europa Universalis IV (a commercial game), and I thought, hey, why not have a look at Battle for Wesnoth? So I did, and I was very surprised to find that you have your music licensed under the GPL, which is an extremely difficult license for music.

The GPL requires that you make available the source code of your work, and notes that

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. 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.

By analogy, the source code of a music file would consist of, at the very least, something like a Sibelius/Finale file, and possibly even the soundfont used to turn it into music. In no case will I ever believe that an Ogg Vorbis file is "the preferred form for making modifications".

So, uhm, is the source code of all of Wesnoth's music actually available, or is everyone redistributing it illegally?

[Iris]

From the README:

The game's source code and artwork, sound, and music assets are provided under
the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2, or (at your option) any
later version. Note that for artwork, sound, and music, we interpret
"preferred form of the work for making modifications" as the modifiable form
that the author chooses to ship us for the source tree. For convenience, a
reference copy of the GNU GPL version 2 is provided in the COPYING file in
this distribution.

This is our official stance on the matter. Certainly, everyone has different opinions on how that particular point of the GNU GPL should be interpreted, and we have discussed the subject extensively in the past, as a forums or site search may reveal — which is also why this isn’t up for debate in the forums at this time.

[mgoetze]

This is our official stance on the matter. Certainly, everyone has different opinions on how that particular point of the GNU GPL should be interpreted, and we have discussed the subject extensively in the past, as a forums or site search may reveal — which is also why this isn’t up for debate in the forums at this time.

OK, I would have expected that kind of prior discussion to be reflected in the sticky topics, guess I was wrong.

I consider it a stretch to consider an Ogg file even a "modifiable form", much less the preferred one.

[mgoetze]

I found some prior discussion:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=21082

It seems like pretty much everyone agreed that Oggs are not the source code and it would be an excellent idea to change the licensing. 6 years later, nothing happened.

I am forced to conclude that it would be technically illegal for me to redistribute BfW music (and, consequently, the game as a whole).

[Iris]

The discussion there predates the addition of the note in the README I quoted above (commit 04fbd76 in the repository).

[mgoetze]

I don't see how that note in the README changes anything. If I distribute Microsoft Windows along with a README stating "I interprete the EULA as giving me permission to freely redistribute this software", it's not going to stop Microsoft from suing me and winning.

[AI]

The difference is that the authors of wesnoth are the ones that own the copyright. That means that we decide what license we grant our work under. If we distribute it under the GPL and say the source is a donut held by Dave somewhere in the US, then all you have the right to is that donut.

[iceiceice]

mgoetze: I didn't take away from the thread you referenced the same thing you did. The post which sets the tone for all the posts which follow is West's, here:

http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=21082#p294867

Therein, West argues that even the project files can't reasonably be thought of as the source, because any experienced composer will know that getting exactly the right library and settings to back it up is unrealistic. There is no format in which one could reasonably expect to transfer the project to another expert to make tweaks / updates without completely wrecking the final result. So formally, the argument is that the concept of "preferred format for making modifications" doesn't actually make very much sense in the context of the music used in wesnoth. Are the ogg vorbis files a "good" format for doing this? No, probably not. But is there realistically a better one? If not then we fulfill even a very strict interpretation of the license.

[zookeeper]

I couldn't say whether it's technically illegal or not, but the musicians aren't going to sue you for violating the license by not providing sources anyway, so it's pretty much an academic discussion (which, as said, we're not happy to have re-iterated over and over again).

[mgoetze]

The difference is that the authors of wesnoth are the ones that own the copyright. That means that we decide what license we grant our work under. If we distribute it under the GPL and say the source is a donut held by Dave somewhere in the US, then all you have the right to is that donut.

1. I don't believe this to be true.
2. Even if it is true in some jurisdictions, it may not be true in others.
3. Even if it is true in your jurisdiction, it clearly violates the spirit of the GPL.
4. According to this stance your software would have to be removed from Debian and some other Linux distributions.

mgoetze: I didn't take away from the thread you referenced the same thing you did. The post which sets the tone for all the posts which follow is West's, here:

http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?t=21082#p294867

Therein, West argues that even the project files can't reasonably be thought of as the source, because any experienced composer will know that getting exactly the right library and settings to back it up is unrealistic. There is no format in which one could reasonably expect to transfer the project to another expert to make tweaks / updates without completely wrecking the final result. So formally, the argument is that the concept of "preferred format for making modifications" doesn't actually make very much sense in the context of the music used in wesnoth. Are the ogg vorbis files a "good" format for doing this? No, probably not. But is there realistically a better one? If not then we fulfill even a very strict interpretation of the license.

I am also an experienced (albeit inactive) composer and I consider this statement utterly absurd. To be sure, the more minor you wanted a tweak to be the harder it would be to achieve. But even a raw MIDI file would make it much easier to make modifications of any kind. It is clear to me, as someone experienced in the free software world, that the GPL means the files the original author would himself use if he were making "tweaks", and it is equally clear to me, as a musician, that these are not Ogg Vorbis files. What is less clear to me is whether the use of proprietary samples in the creation process makes it illegal to license the resulting work under the GPL in the first place.

Now let me be clear here: I fully understand a composer's desire to maintain the integrity of his artistic vision. As much as I am a staunch supporter of the GPL for software, if I were still writing music, I would almost certainly refuse to make it available under the GPL.

And as such I read the statement of West and other composers in that thread more as: "Uh, this is what I signed up for when I licensed my music under the GPL? That can't possibly be right! I never meant to do that!"

Fortunately, noone is planning to sue anyone. But nevertheless, just do yourself a favour and change the licensing of your art and music to something sensible. There's no reason not to.

[iceiceice]

Of course you are welcome to your opinion, and I mean you no disrespect, but your view is directly contradicted by the experts in the other thread:

We're not exactly talking about midi files here. You can't just hook it up to any midi sound source and expect it to sound good, and thus "[...] enables people to tweak and update the music (even if the composer has left)" falls flat on its face. There is simply too many things that could go wrong (mix levels, ranges, keyboard mapping etc). It would most likely be far less work to write entirely new music than to "update" someone else's. In fact, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that anyone who thinks a music project file can be successfully used and tweaked by anyone who has the same DAW lacks an understanding of how crazily complex and fiddly orchestral sequencing is.

Personally I think this strict adherence to the GPL in this case is impossible, because there is no way the "sources" could be provided in such a way as to make it so that another person could reliably reproduce the same result on a different machine. It is quite possible for one to take the recording and modify it in different ways such as changing the volume, speed, and pitch, or even slicing it up and adding it to a Hip Hop song. Thus the recording itself might be considered a source file. The water is so muddy here that there is no clear answer. I concur with what the other artists have said so far here: I think that releasing the so-called "source" files would not be very beneficial...

We're happy to explain it for you, but if you are seeking a debate or lobbying for a policy change, you might be barking up the wrong tree.

Edit: Of course you are right that many musicians also discuss their loathe to disclose project files, but that is tangential to the main issue.

Edit: If you really feel that, for your purposes, you could not sleep at night unless all the music was under e.g. creative commons instead, then as I understand, *we* actually could not help you with that, as we do not hold the copyright to the music in the source tree. Those files are only released by the authors under GPL, and they retain the copyright. I imagine that most likely, any of them would agree to release also under creative commons for example, but tracking them down and asking them is work that we are not going to do for you.

[zookeeper]

GPL is a stupid license for music audio files, I'm pretty sure everyone actually agrees with that. The only reason it's used is because that's what happened with the very first tracks in the game aeons ago, and afterwards it's always been more work to organize a re-licensing with all the musicians than to just keep things as they've been, and arguably it's probably been simpler to have the entire game is under one license instead of several.

Contacting every one of the musicians and getting them to agree on one license that they'd all be willing to re-license their works under is quite a bit of work with uncertain results. If you want to help do that, then I wouldn't expect anyone to object.

[aquileia]

But even a raw MIDI file would make it much easier to make modifications of any kind.

Just two more comments:

• Are you aware of this post? http://r.wesnoth.org/p521014
  I'd suggest you download sad.mid yourself and compare with the original in Wesnoth... the first time I did this myself, I checked whether it was the 1st of april. Good luck taking that as a base.
• IIRC I read on a similar discussion that even the composers no longer have all of their old project files.

One could even say that the preferred format for changes is 'start from scratch'.

Edit: Oh I just have to reference this... http://r.wesnoth.org/p525004

[West]

Here we go again...

I am also an experienced (albeit inactive) composer and I consider this statement utterly absurd.

The reason you're finding this absurd is that you lack proper insight into the process, and thus your opinion is largely irrelevant. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But even a raw MIDI file would make it much easier to make modifications of any kind.

No. There is simply no way you could create a modified version from a midi file that would sound *anything* like the original. For reasons explained in I don't know how many topics on this forum from over the years. In fact you'd have more luck slicing an ogg file up into bits, rearranging it and adding your own instrumentation on top of it.

What is less clear to me is whether the use of proprietary samples in the creation process makes it illegal to license the resulting work under the GPL in the first place.

Oh come ON! Have a look at the existing samples available under a GPL-compatible license (if you find any). If that was a requirement, Wesnoth would have awful or possibly no music. Admittedly that has no bearing on the legality bit, but seriously... it would be like saying you can't use Photoshop for creating/editing Wesnoth graphics, or Visual Studio for programming. The samples, just like the DAW and plugins, are a means to an end. Let's attract more people to OSS shall we, not scare them off with freetardness?

And as such I read the statement of West and other composers in that thread more as: "Uh, this is what I signed up for when I licensed my music under the GPL? That can't possibly be right! I never meant to do that!"

You may interpret it any way you like. I'm fine with licensing my music under the GPL, and have done so for years, as long as everyone's clear on that music != code. You can't provide a valid editable source for it the way you can for a compiled program.

But nevertheless, just do yourself a favour and change the licensing of your art and music to something sensible. There's no reason not to.

Finally something we can agree on. If nothing else, we wouldn't have to have these debates every year.

[xtifr]

Music (and art) are data! Not code. And Wesnoth is not unique. There are thousands of programs licensed under the GPL which treat images and sounds as data, not code, and do not include the "source". The GPL is very clear about code. It is not so clear about data. But the precedent of the thousands of other programs (including Emacs, the first program licensed under the GPL, created by the author of the GPL) is exactly the same as what Wesnoth does. Images and sound files are presented "as is". Almost universally.

The ultimate bottom line, though, is that nobody has any standing to complain about what's in Wesnoth or how it's provided except the copyright holders! You can shout all you want about how the "source" for this or that should be provided, but unless it's something you created, you have no basis for complaint. The GPL exists to protect you from being sued by the copyright holders, should you redistribute the work. It does not enable you to sue (or even give you a basis to whine at) the copyright holders for anything. If you somehow believe that Wesnoth is violating its own license, you have one recourse: you can refrain from redistributing it, so that you, personally, don't violate the license. That's it.

Just so we're really clear on this: if I write a program and distribute it under the terms of the GPL, and don't provide any source code at all, that's perfectly legal! Silly, but legal. Copyright holders don't need a license. The GPL doesn't mean you get to demand the source; it simply means you can't redistribute it without the source.