CC Sampling Plus 1.0

[svenskmand]

I discovered freesound.org some weeks ago, and found many of their samples to be very useful for OpenDungeons, but our license for our content is CC-BY-SA and the license for CC-SP1 (CC Sampling Plus 1.0) states that it is not allowed to redistribute copies for profit, but you are allowed to mash-up or sample their files, and then redistribute the stuff commercially. So hopefully this should not be a problem

So what do you think am I right or do you see any potential conflict between the two licenses?

[qubodup]

3.a.ii:

[...] if You choose to use the original Work as a whole, You must [...] transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. [...]

What does "substantially different" mean?

Taking a dog bark sound, slapping a bunch of filters on it so it sounds like an atom bomb blast: yes.
Taking a dog bark sound, removing noise and giving it an echo so it sounds like an evil dog from hell: no.
In My Humble Opinion.

What do you consider to be "substantially different"?

[jonan]

CC Sampling Plus 1.0 is incompatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) discussion. So if you want your game to be fully open, this license is not an option.
Anyhow, if your only concern is if you can distribute a game with some media CC-by-sa 3.0 and other with CC-sampling+ then the answer is yes

[qubodup]

Anyhow, if your only concern is if you can distribute a game with some media CC-by-sa 3.0 and other with CC-sampling+ then the answer is yes

I think the question was whether it is possible to re-license a sampling+-licensed sound to a by-sa-licensed sound by editing it.

[svenskmand]

Anyhow, if your only concern is if you can distribute a game with some media CC-by-sa 3.0 and other with CC-sampling+ then the answer is yes

I think the question was whether it is possible to re-license a sampling+-licensed sound to a by-sa-licensed sound by editing it.

Yes that was the question

[andrewj]

This is a bad license, "substantially different" is so vague that it's almost ridiculous.

Avoid.

[svenskmand]

I just found this on the freesound.org forums. Althought the legal text is a bit vague on some points, this faq states how freesound.org interprets it, ant I think it is in line with what I mentioned in my first post.

[amuzen]

7. Miscellaneous

a. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.
b. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

To me it looks like it'll stay under the same license, no matter what you do to it. Well, even if it didn't have these clauses, it would be the same since that's the default for copyright. The license needs to explicitly grant you the right and, as far as I can tell, this one doesn't. IANAL, though.

[qubodup]

I just found this on the freesound.org forums. Althought the legal text is a bit vague on some points, this faq states how freesound.org interprets it, ant I think it is in line with what I mentioned in my first post.

I assume you refer to

Can I use freesound samples in my commercial/for-profit project?
Yes! However, you may not use a sample in advertising that is not related to the work. For instance, if you use a freesound sample in your film, you can sell copies of the film, and use the sample in ads for the film and the film's soundtrack. However, you can't use the sample to sell an unrelated product like shampoo or a car.
You also must properly attribute the sample.

Careful, what you're asking is not "can I use these in my game?" but "can I release edited versions of these under BY-SA?".

Because you may not have the limitation "do not use this work in advertising" or "do not sell this work on its own" attached to a BY-SA-licensed work, you may not use the BY-SA license.

[svenskmand]

7. Miscellaneous

a. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.
b. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

To me it looks like it'll stay under the same license, no matter what you do to it. Well, even if it didn't have these clauses, it would be the same since that's the default for copyright. The license needs to explicitly grant you the right and, as far as I can tell, this one doesn't. IANAL, though.

I have not seen this, then it is clear that their stuff is useless

Edit: but then this clause means that it is legal to distribute copies of "Children Of Men" as it uses a sample from freesound.org?

I just found this on the freesound.org forums. Althought the legal text is a bit vague on some points, this faq states how freesound.org interprets it, ant I think it is in line with what I mentioned in my first post.

I assume you refer to

Can I use freesound samples in my commercial/for-profit project?
Yes! However, you may not use a sample in advertising that is not related to the work. For instance, if you use a freesound sample in your film, you can sell copies of the film, and use the sample in ads for the film and the film's soundtrack. However, you can't use the sample to sell an unrelated product like shampoo or a car.
You also must properly attribute the sample.

Careful, what you're asking is not "can I use these in my game?" but "can I release edited versions of these under BY-SA?".

Because you may not have the limitation "do not use this work in advertising" or "do not sell this work on its own" attached to a BY-SA-licensed work, you may not use the BY-SA license.

As amuzen said, then §7 ruins the CC-BY-SA anyway , hmm, then I need to find sounds other places. Anybody knows a good free (really free, CC-PD, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or something like that?) place?

[qubodup]

Edit: but then this clause means that it is legal to distribute copies of "Children Of Men" as it uses a sample from freesound.org?

Re-read again

b. Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

As amuzen said, then §7 ruins the CC-BY-SA anyway

7. does not put limitation on derivate works, it only states that you need to make clear the license terms of the works used in your work. 3. however does put limitations on derivate works, which ruin the by-sa compability.

Anybody knows a good free (really free, CC-PD, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or something like that?) place?

Sure,
1. http://www.pdsounds.org (download nearly all, except for the most recent, in one .7z from http://pdsounds.tuxfamily.org/ )
2. http://opengameart.org/browse-menu/audio/25/10
3. 2-3 more at http://freegamedev.net/wiki/Free_3D_and ... rces#Sound

Are there specific things you're looking for?

[svenskmand]

7. does not put limitation on derivate works, it only states that you need to make clear the license terms of the works used in your work. 3. however does put limitations on derivate works, which ruin the by-sa compability.

But if this is not the case, then why should I not be allowed to make a derivative work and release that under CC-BY-SA? because as you say §7.b: states

Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

And the entire license text only mentions non-commercial one time, and that is in §3.d.i and ii, and this is only for verbatim copies of the original work, NOT derivative works. So why should I not be allowed to relicense my derivative work as CC-BY-SA?

PS: I have now asked the people at freesound.org, if anybody is interested in their answer

[qubodup]

And the entire license text only mentions non-commercial one time, and that is in §3.d.i and ii, and this is only for verbatim copies of the original work, NOT derivative works. So why should I not be allowed to relicense my derivative work as CC-BY-SA?

You're right, 3. doesn't put limitations on derivate works themselves, but 3.a. puts limitations on what kind of derivate works may be created

Re-creativity permitted. You may create and reproduce Derivative Works, provided that:
1. the Derivative Work(s) constitute a good-faith partial or recombined usage employing "sampling," "collage," "mash-up," or other comparable artistic technique, whether now known or hereafter devised, that is highly transformative of the original, as appropriate to the medium, genre, and market niche; and
2. Your Derivative Work(s) must only make a partial use of the original Work, or if You choose to use the original Work as a whole, You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. [...]

3.a.1 does apply, 3.a.2 does not apply, if you intend to just cleanup/cut some sounds.

I'll reply in the freesound thread as good as I can as well, since you asked different questions there.