Forums

    7 posts

  • avatar
    2 sounds
    6 posts
    New licences in 2.0


    Just wondering what everyone is picking? I went the middle road - dont care what you use it for, just give me a hi-5 in the credits.

    The public domain licence is good but, without attribution, others won't be able to find the sounds used on a project as easily...

    revel in the blasphemy of life!
  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1538 posts


    So far:

    Sampling+ -->95711
    Attribution --> 19347
    Attribution Noncommercial --> 2088
    Creative Commons 0 --> 2980

    Warning: if you break the rules, see my avatar. Freesound Admin, Moderator, Ex-Freesound-Coder & Benevolent Dictator For Life.
  • avatar
    1 sound
    1 post


    I think it's really sad that freesound has add the non-commercial license. I understand that people should be given a range of options, but it seems like everyone on the internet nowadays just sees the list of cc licenses and says "Oh, I hate corporations, I'd better choose non-commercial so they can't exploit my creativity!

    What they don't understand is how limiting non-commercial is. It doesn't just mean your sound can't be used in the new sham-wow ad, it means it can't be used on wikipedia, for an independent film to be sold on dvd, etc. It also basically traps it on the internet, since there's so much less free-sharing in the real world. I think non-commercial really violates the spirit of creative commons, and that not a lot of people understand how limiting it is.

    Freesound has for a while been one of the few really good commercially-usable stuff databases on the internet, and I'm really worried that this change will push it away from that. Pretty soon it'll be "Sortoffreesound" in practice, and I'll probably stop using it nearly as much.

    "sad" indeed.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    Oh boy... does this mean I have to go through the entire list of sounds I've already used to see if I can still use them commercially? I've downloaded tons
    (and I mean tons) of samples and created new songs out of them... They haven't been released yet but what if, during this time, someone decided to go with "non-commercial"? I don't have enough days in my life to check every single user. sad

  • avatar
    1 sound
    1 post


    No, you don't have to do that. If one user changes the license of his sound effect, then it means that the song is licensed additionally under that license.

  • avatar
    28 sounds
    9 posts


    I truly beleive that people who previously uploaded samples under the Sampling+ license should not have been given the right to choose the Non-Commercial license as this is gonna cause so many headaches.

    I chose CC BY as that is the closest to the sampling+ license.

    But this also changes how people can use the samples as well. I'm sure that under this license the samples can be used for advertising and can now be sold on sample CD's (obviously if attributed correctly) which they wouldnt have been able to do before.

    Creative Commons should have kept the sampling+ license in my oppinion.

    However, i do love the new look smile

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1538 posts


    BDWRekordings.com wrote:
    Creative Commons should have kept the sampling+ license in my oppinion.

    CC didn't "delete" the license! They just stopped recommending it for new works! And yes, the attribution licence is the closest thing to Sampling+, but much clearer.

    - bram

    Warning: if you break the rules, see my avatar. Freesound Admin, Moderator, Ex-Freesound-Coder & Benevolent Dictator For Life.

    7 posts