FreeGameDev

Hey, I'm Magnius. I'm a composer. I can compose in any type of style whether it be orchestra, techno, rock; you name it. I'm a free composer and my music is all created using free materials. In this thread, you can download my free music. My music is free, just make sure to give credit.

Here are some examples of my music:

https://soundcloud.com/magnius2/magnius-mystical-quest
https://soundcloud.com/magnius/magnius-fight-or-dance
https://soundcloud.com/magnius/magnius- ... ovel-style
https://soundcloud.com/magnius/magnius-smooth-player



You can download the rest of my music at this link:
https://www.soundcloud.com/magnius/


Or this link for my second account:

https://www.soundcloud.com/magnius2/

Dear Magnius

Thanks for posting. However free isn't always free in the sense of open-source. It sounds like you would be fine with the "creative commons attribution" license. If so please clarify, because otherwise your "free" music is sadly off topic for this forum as we mean "free as in freedom".

Julius {l Wrote}:Dear Magnius

Thanks for posting. However free isn't always free in the sense of open-source. It sounds like you would be fine with the "creative commons attribution" license. If so please clarify, because otherwise your "free" music is sadly off topic for this forum as we mean "free as in freedom".

Hrm, I would say that Julius represents the more... purist side of the forum.

Attribution licenses are a bit of a grey area but they do fall within the realms of open source. It just depends on how far you take the attribution e.g. displaying credits in a game or credited as part of Debian or Fedora etc if they include said game.

I personally do not have much of a problem with attribution licenses albeit I can see why it might turn off some moreso with code than art though. The reality is most game devs would not remix a music track, just include it, so why not credit the creator in the game's credits?

Well, yes I was a bit ambiguous with my reply.
What I mainly meant is "here is my free music" doesn't mean anything as "free" can mean a lot of different things.
Thus we usually insist that you should chose an actual license that clearly outlines the terms of usage (and is also irrevocable).
If that license is one not generally considered to be in line with the open-source/Free Software movement then it is also somewhat off-topic to this forum.

I agree with Charlie. Nobiax does this and his textures are in almost every single open source FPS game! It really isn't an issue to be vague with your licensing. And when I say vague, I mean 'vague to lawyers'... as people, we can understand very well what 'free' means. :P I think Magnius was pretty clear with what he expects, I see no room for error there other than how certain legal jurisdictions might perceive it with their convoluted systems of law.

Evropi {l Wrote}:I agree with Charlie. Nobiax does this and his textures are in almost every single open source FPS game! It really isn't an issue to be vague with your licensing. And when I say vague, I mean 'vague to lawyers'... as people, we can understand very well what 'free' means. :P I think Magnius was pretty clear with what he expects, I see no room for error there other than how certain legal jurisdictions might perceive it with their convoluted systems of law.

I can't agree here. At least from a distributor's perspective (as packager for a Linux distribution), I can say that if a content is not clearly licensed, it's freeware, which is "nonfree" by all free software definitions. If you don't clearly tell the user about her right to redistribute, to edit or to sell the content that was labelled as "free music for your games" or "free textures for your FPS", then the user has to assume that she does not have those rights.

Properly licensing one's content also makes sure that it will stay available for its users. You can say one day "here is some free artwork", then everyone will start using it in their project, and then you decide to create your own proprietary content based on the artwork _you_ designed, and you place your artwork under a more restrictive copyright, which makes illegal the use of it in open source projects. You have a right to do so, but most people who care about open source won't gladly use unlicenced "free of charge" content.

So if there's a will to give "free as in free speech" music to the world, as it seems to be the case for Magnius, it's not that hard to say "it's Creative Common Attribution - Share alike CC By-SA 3.0" (or any other good license) and to bundle a license file with your content, and/or put it on your download page.

Now if you say that all open-source FPS use unlicensed "free of charge" artwork, then it's quite bad. It means it properly also badly documented, since every time I package a game I try to make 100% sure that the assets are free. If not, I put them in a "nonfree" repository (or I don't package them at all if I'm not sure that the freeware content grants redistribution rights). It's not only a matter of lawyers, free software and free culture belongs to everyone of us, and we need to know what our rights are. And it's really easy to pick up a license, when you know what you want to do and to allow with your artwork. If you're not sure about it, then most likely other people shouldn't base their work on it.

@Magnius: The above discussion is only partly directed at you ;-)
We don't purposely ignore the topic which is that you've created some nice music and want to let us make us of it. I'll listen to your tracks and try to give some feedback :-)

Ok, I jumped directly to the tracks and took some time to listen the music. It reminds me when my music collection was a bunch of MOD files. I like it, but I have to say that Mystical quest doesnt sounds too mystical or even a quest for me and fight or dance sounds more like dance. Definitely I will download all of them.

I agree with Akien - e.g., Internet Explorer is "free", but that doesn't mean anyone can redistribute it. Even if redistribution is implied (by saying people just need to give credit), it may be unclear if these means things like commercial usage. Even if it seems clear to the developer, it may cause problems for trying to distribute through various channels, which might require "established" licences for Open Source, or worry that they don't have the sufficient rights to redistribute.

I hope we haven't scared Magnius off with our licensing talk We're just trying to advocate the benefits of licences - offering people the option to licence under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ for example would be great for people wanting to use your work.

Also if you haven't already found it, http://opengameart.org/ is a great site to advertise/submit Free art and music for games.