NBO website future

Link to good samples/soundfonts at http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/free_audio_data

Moderators: khz, MattKingUSA

User avatar
Lyberta
Establlshed Member
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:15 pm
Location: The Internet
Contact:

Re: NBO website future

Postby Lyberta » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:08 pm

Lyberta wrote:The domain will cost you 10.79$ per year. Otherwise, it will be cybersquatted.


And it was. Heh, someone somewhere thought that nobudgetorchestra.net is a good investment opportunity. I don't know, Jeff, NBO has some good samples in it, why are you not caring for your project?

nilshi
Establlshed Member
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: NBO website future

Postby nilshi » Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:27 pm

Before you go all big and wide with this, have you made the license situation 100% clear? Upstream (checking sources) as well as downstream, explaining and licensing everything clearly to the users?

j_e_f_f_g
Establlshed Member
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby j_e_f_f_g » Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:45 pm

Lyberta wrote:why are you not caring for your project?


I'm caring for my project, which is the NBO files themselves. Your website was not part of that project. It was an additional project that was terminated before it ever became a notable resource. I never even had opportunity to refer anyone to that site, so it's best that it just be forgotten now.

Glen has been reliably providing hosting of the NBO files for awhile now, and for as long as he is willing to continue so, I'm happy with that arrangement. His URL is what I've been historically referring people to, and will continue doing so.

In addition, Paul's "Virtual Playing Orchestra" contains a majority of the instruments of NBO, so it's like a second source for that content. And he is providing alternate hosting.

have you made the license situation 100% clear


It is quite clear. Unlike earlier distributions of the NBO files, the current distribution is a single zip file containing a very logically organized directory structure. Each set of samples which pertain to a particular license is separated into its own directory, and contains a "license.txt" file that specifies the license for those samples, For example, the Violin/SoloViola directory contains samples that come from one source. In that directory is a "licence.txt" specifying the license for those samples. The Violin/SoloViolin directory contains samples that come from a different source. That directory contains its own "licence.txt" specifying the license for those samples.

Because NBO relies upon multiple sources (my criteria is to use the best-sounding, freely redistributable samples), there are multiple license.txt files. But you know how each instrument/samples is licensed.

User avatar
Michael Willis
Establlshed Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:27 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby Michael Willis » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:37 am

Lyberta wrote:Heh, someone somewhere thought that nobudgetorchestra.net is a good investment opportunity


More likely some algorithm made an automated decision to snatch it up when it became available.

Back on topic (somewhat), this conversation has seemed really hostile. Does it really have to be this way? A lot of communication on this forum can be very kind, even when people disagree. Many times when there is the possibility of hurt feelings or offense, I've been very impressed that people have been able to clarify and maintain good relationships.

j_e_f_f_g
Establlshed Member
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby j_e_f_f_g » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:29 am

Michael Willis wrote:this conversation has seemed really hostile.


I don't see that at all. AFAIK, there is no animosity between any individuals who have so far posted to this thread. Certainly there isn't on my part.

To be clear, I've always been happy with Glen hosting nbo, and continue to be so. He's been doing this reliably for awhile, and keeps files uptodate. I've referred lots of people to download nbo from his site, and no problem has ever been reported. Unless he changes this arrangement, glen's site is the primary distribution source for nbo. All other hosting that is offered, is welcomed but secondary. By being so consistantly reliable, it makes no sense to not keep glen as the primary nbo distributor.

As to Ly's hosting, I never had opportunity to refer anyone to that site before it was terminated. The plan was to wait until the next major update to nbo was complete (the entire orchestra is going to become an lv2 instrument plugin), and additional work was done to the site. Being that the site wasn't utilized, and was a secondary source, the best policy is just to let it go peacefully into that good night.

As to licensing questions, those have been answered in an entirely professional and accurate manner.

User avatar
Lyberta
Establlshed Member
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:15 pm
Location: The Internet
Contact:

Re: NBO website future

Postby Lyberta » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:56 pm

nilshi wrote:Before you go all big and wide with this, have you made the license situation 100% clear? Upstream (checking sources) as well as downstream, explaining and licensing everything clearly to the users?


As I said many times. The license.txt is not always correct when it comes to samples from freesound.org which Jeff consistently fails to address. I did have a plan to go through all samples, determine their actual license and collect all free cultural works into separate compilation called Libre Orchestra. Sadly, I didn't have time to do it yet.

j_e_f_f_g
Establlshed Member
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby j_e_f_f_g » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:48 pm

Lyberta wrote:The license.txt is not always correct when it comes to samples from freesound.org


That license.txt file is automatically included in every zip file you download from freesound.org when you download samples as a "pack" (as I do). (well, I do shorten the filename . The original filename is "_attribution_and_license.txt"). The samples for each freesound pack are placed in an individual nbo directory (such as Clarinet/SoloClarinet), along with that pack's license.txt. I do add a notice that the samples have been modified by me, and I include the freesound url to the original pack (samples). The remaining information is what freesound.org supplied.

I've explained the above to you before, Tony.

NBO's system of providing attribution and licensing for material that encompasses a large number of authors/licenses couldn't be simpler nor clearer. I refuse to believe you don't "get it". Therefore, I'm logically left to conclude that your above statement is implying freesound is incorrectly licensing content,

freesound is a respectable and valuable site. I know numerous people who have used it for years. You're the first and only person I've heard make that accusation about its license.txt files. I trust the vetting of its many members. I'm not inclined to believe such an accusation without evidence (which you haven't shown).

User avatar
Lyberta
Establlshed Member
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:15 pm
Location: The Internet
Contact:

Re: NBO website future

Postby Lyberta » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:56 pm

j_e_f_f_g wrote:Therefore, I'm logically left to conclude that your above statement is implying freesound is incorrectly licensing content


Yes. Whoever wrote the code that generates license.txt didn't bother to write the code that would check the license of individual sample and properly state the correct license.

I have sent them the following:
I have been informed that when you download a pack from this site. The license information lists all possible licenses on the site and not the actual licenses of the samples in that pack.

A person can download a pack, look at the license info and assume that samples can be used under any license in the list. After that, they can use the samples as if they were licensed under CC0 while the actual samples may be CC-BY-NC and therefore commit copyright infringement.


Let's see what they will reply.
Last edited by Lyberta on Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Michael Willis
Establlshed Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 3:27 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby Michael Willis » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm

j_e_f_f_g wrote:
Michael Willis wrote:this conversation has seemed really hostile.


I don't see that at all. AFAIK, there is no animosity between any individuals who have so far posted to this thread.


Oh, sorry, I must have fallen into the classic case of misconstruing people's feelings from text communication.

j_e_f_f_g
Establlshed Member
Posts: 998
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:48 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby j_e_f_f_g » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:04 pm

Lyberta wrote:Whoever wrote the code that generates license.txt didn't bother to write the code that would check the license of individual sample and properly state the correct license.

when you download a pack from this site. The license information lists all possible licenses on the site and not the actual licenses of the samples in that pack.


I don't know where you got this info, but it's definitely false. For example, the author of the ldk violin explicitly put his work in the public domain. And cc0 is in fact what you get when you download that pack. Other packs forbid commercial use, for example, and in every such pack I've ever downloaded, the license.txt properly listed the one relevant NC license. I downloaded probably a 100 packs, and have never seen what you describe. Furthermore, I've uploaded 4 packs of my own samples, and the license I chose (No commercial restrictions) is what you get in the "_attribution_and_license.txt" with my packs.

Please don't send freesound an email with false accusations. They provide a very valuable service completely free of charge. NBO would not exist without them. They're already facing budget pressures from the university. I'd hate for some beancounter/lawyer to get wind of these allegations, and use them as an excuse to scuttle what is undoubtably regarded as an "unnecessary revenue drain". But that's exactly the sort of thing that happens all the time over here in the real world.

User avatar
GMaq
Establlshed Member
Posts: 1284
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:42 pm

Re: NBO website future

Postby GMaq » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:21 pm

j_e_f_f_g wrote:
To be clear, I've always been happy with Glen hosting nbo, and continue to be so. He's been doing this reliably for awhile, and keeps files uptodate. I've referred lots of people to download nbo from his site, and no problem has ever been reported. Unless he changes this arrangement, glen's site is the primary distribution source for nbo. All other hosting that is offered, is welcomed but secondary. By being so consistantly reliable, it makes no sense to not keep glen as the primary nbo distributor.


Hi,

To interject briefly, I'll leave the licensing stuff to you guys to arm wrestle over...

As far as hosting I will do continue to do so, just keep me in the loop and let me know what you want, I don't always keep up on what's happening so never assume I know. Since I'm on wordpress now it would be trivial to create a simple page for NBO pointing to the Archive so the hosting won't change and there would be some sort of 'website' associated with NBO/NBB. It won't be immediately but I'll put it on my Todo list.

User avatar
Lyberta
Establlshed Member
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:15 pm
Location: The Internet
Contact:

Re: NBO website future

Postby Lyberta » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:38 pm

Here's what I got from freesound:
Hi,

That's not correct: at the top of the TXT file in the pack it lists all the licenses on the site, but then for per sound it mentions which license that particular sound has.

This is because people can create packs with sounds that have different licenses.

I hope this helps...

- Bram


So, Jeff, you forgot to state the licenses of each file.


Return to “Samplers & samples”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests