$12256 / $11500
A great track by Harold Azmed. I especially found the piano part very interesting for video games.
This time it is harder to find a genre a priori, so just try it out in your game to realize whether it works or not. Also it has many variations and changes which makes the track great, but if it is hard to make it fit your game consider looping as a helpful technique.
This track is off the beautiful album Altar Soundtracks, one of Harold Azmeds great Soundtrack albums. There are also some other works by Harold Azmed posted on OpenGameart.org, so check them out.
palm of my hand - at the altar.ogg 3.7 Mb [205 download(s)]
This website's content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Comments
Is this for commercial use? The site said it was non-commercial use?
Agreed. It looks like Harold Azmed has this licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. Unless special permission was obtained from him to relicense it (or UNrelicense it, if he originally licensed it CC-BY-SA, but changed it later), I don't think this can stay here. Not even considering how long it's been here, unfortunately.
There is some other stuff of Harold Azmed too in his/her posts. I skipped them and didn't put them in my download collection because I couldn't really figure out how to credit.
http://opengameart.org/content/palm-of-my-hand-flash-back
http://opengameart.org/content/palm-of-my-hand-intro
http://opengameart.org/content/palm-of-my-hand-at-the-altar
http://opengameart.org/content/churches-in-antioquia-intro
That's interesting. It's been 6 years since I uploaded it. I always been respectful of the CC terms used, even asked for permission to re-lincense if the CC version wasn't the same as the one we use on OpenGameArt.
I am quite sure I didn't ask Harold Azmed for permission on this one, only wrote him that we re using his works. My guess is that he changed the license of the music on Jamendo (which is a feature there). In that case we would be legally allowed to keep redistributing it under the same license according to https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if...
I remember omitting a lot of amazing tracks because they had ND or NC clauses. I am quite sure that it had the same license I uploaded it with and you re the first people to comment on this, altough the source has been linked for 6 years.
I just found the album on the internet archive: https://archive.org/details/jamendo-029076
The License.txt states the same license we use here. This should be proof that the author changed the license and we're still allowed to distribute it without any change.
Zuxal, even though it has no NC clause, it might be still problematic using it in a proprietary commercial game, because of the SA clause. It is not clear if you have to license more of the game under the same. This is not straight forward and hasn't been tested in any legislation yet as far as I know.
99.99% of people say SA is share edits of the original artwork. Everyone I ask says that. For instance, if I improve a tileset, then I MUST share it. My stuff is open source anyway, so it does not really matter. By majority rule....I believe everyone want edits of the original work shared unless the artist stated otherwise.
Heh, that is a long discussion believe me. And majority rules don't apply to copyright. Do whatever you want, this is nothing but a fair warning.
Personally I am just happy this beautiful music can stay on OpenGameArt.
I would need to read a court case on this.
ShareAlike —If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
It plainly refers to the original material, but anything is possible as you said.
My one question is if GPL tilesets can be for commercial use. I Know one can sell GPL material, but does it affect the different material in the game?
Zuxal, basically GPL and CC both build upon copyright laws, which differ for each legislation. Is a game derived from the art it uses is not a simple question. As far as I know this can't be even defined in a license, but depends on the copyright laws. I would love to see some court settling this issue, but even then it would just apply to one legislation.
Just my two cents and a short warning. The rest is up to you.
Hmm....does not really answer my question. Well, it doesn't really matter. haha
Zuxal, selling GPL or CC-BY-SA is not a problem. It might be only a problem, if you re not willing to (or cant) relicense the rest of it as the same license. Selling GPL games is OK, not sharing the source when doing so is not.
As long as I share the GPL tileset's source, then it is fine?
The licensing issue remains unresolved. Although the internet archive shows a different license was used at one point, and that license is irrevokable, we still want permission from Harold Azmed to host it here under the "old" license. Anybody can use this under the old license, but OGA generally tries to adhere to an artists wishes regardless of being able to legally defy them. Harold Azmed has his songs listed as CC-NC. I would rather not remove these submissions, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if we had a clear blessing from the artist that he is ok with OGA hosting his work under an old license that don't match his current apparent preferences.
This applies to the other submissions from this artist as well: http://opengameart.org/content/palm-of-my-hand-intro, http://opengameart.org/content/palm-of-my-hand-flash-back, http://opengameart.org/content/churches-in-antioquia-intro
Regarding OGA's stance on licensing changes and artist's wishes vs license revokation:
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-other
"...If the attribution or license are incorrect, we would prefer to correct them rather than take the content down. However, we will remove all art at the author's request regardless of license, provided we can reasonably verify that you're the real author..."
http://opengameart.org/content/faq#q-changelicense
"...We encourage you to respect the wishes of the artist if they decide to change the license on their work, however you are under absolutely no obligation to do so, because the license you obtained it under is irrevocable..."
Sounds like OGA is being Hypocritical. It is irrevocable. No "religious blessings" are needed. The author has not asked for it to be taken down. You only, "encourage us to respect the wishes of the artist." No submitter has to follow any such rule. The only way this can be resolved is by Harold Azmed because he is the only one allowed to order a take down according to OGA rules.
Taking it down would mark every post not by the author as unresolved. Good luck contacting thousands of people because I have seen tons of posts with art licence changes to NC. I have downloaded over 20,000 free resources from OGA over the years. I know what I am talking about.
It does not really matter to me though. I already have the free music from Harold Azmed. I do not see the point in being a necromancer. This topic is one year old? Why revive and try to delete it?
True; the original license is irrevokable. I stated as such. This isn't about license revocation.
True; The author has not yet asked for it to be removed. That is why it has not been removed, or even marked as having a licensing issue.
True. Blessings are not mandatory, but it looks like the author has different plans for his work than the license this is currently under. Like I said, anyone can use this under the old license. It is irrevokable. I am not revoking it, Harold cannot revoke it.
Yes, everyone is encouraged to respect the wishes of the artist, but this non-mandatory encouragement is directed at people using the art, not submitters. Submitters ARE required to follow the rule saying artists wishes must be respected. No one is even being accused of malice or disregard for the artist's wishes, only that we should do everything we can to show respect to the artists to promote a good relationship and reputation.
You'll notice no demands were being made, only hopeful requests for a clear OK from the author. The reason I included links to the FAQ was not to say "these are the rules being broken!" it was to show we would rather not remove submissions and that licenses cannot be revoked even if it is decided to remove them from this site out of respect for the author.
There seems to be some impression I am trying to delete this submission despite saying the opposite. I do not want to delete this submission. If, however, the artist sees it and is pissed no one bothered to ask him (even if the request is legally unenforceable and unreasonable), it will be deleted out of respect for the author.
This submission is indeed old, but the age of a submission has no bearing on propriety. If it is discovered something should not have been submitted, it doesn't matter how long it was here, it should not be here. I am hoping that is NOT THE CASE here. The only reason this issue is being revisited at all is because I have had some recent contact with with the author expressing surprise and concern. I was hoping it was simiply due to a language barrier and was hoping there was some action or request remaxim could make to clarify the situation before the author made a takedown request.
It's cool, Zuxal. No action has been taken yet.
"Recent contact with with the author expressing surprise and concern."
Oh. My bad. Feel free to take it down if that is what the author wants. I just thought there was some trolling going on. Haha
Strange... I had to disable rich-text to comment...
Hi MedicineStorm,
I think the age of the submission is only relevant that I did use the specified license by author back then, as the change of license on jamendo only appeared recently. I also wrote him that it is uploaded to opengameart on jamendo at that time as a comment to his tracks.
Basically I think my upload and OGA hosting it is both 100% legal and morally OK.
I do think that it is a good culture to work closely with the author though. If Harold is interested in taking those submissions down, you have my blessing to delete those. Those are beautiful tracks, which is why I uploaded them, and I do hope they will stay up for the community though.