I was certain I featured that spaceship - a miss on my part.
As for the rest, I dunno. I'm not even sure what "featured" is to be used for, honestly; we already have "most favorites" - to me "features" should be a way to show off something that might otherwise not end up in the spotlight, but I don't think OGA is big enough to really need that :).
What I had in mind was thouroughly individually sampled musical instruments, of the kind were a single intstrument can reach several GB. In my experience CCMixter mostly has samples in the other sense :P. I don't browse CCMixter often though, so maybe they do have things like this.
I don't think it's only a matter of knowledge, but also of a (perceived?) lack of successful open art projects - in the software world there are a multitude of open licenses and programs, some of which has been around for ages.
I certainly agree though; this is primarily a question of knowledge/maturity/experience. My guess is that the same development will happen in art as in software; the more prevalent open content becomes, the more accepted it will be, and in turn more open content will be produced. It's a neat cycle, but I don't think it will reach critical mass just yet. Until it does, I think our best bet it to try to make it as simple and attractive as possible.
@Udi: yes, that's basically it. Of course there are artists with day jobs and freelancing programmers, so there are exceptions. On the whole though I'd say it holds. And certainly, quite a few artists does use FOSS projects to get an opportunity to work on something that interests them and make a name for themselves.
@Julies: I believe that is true. It is also not uncommon that experienced artists share their methods and workflows, even if they never use open licenses.
Anyway, I still say there're a few different issues here. Udi, could you clarify? Motivating people to work for free, FaiF art as such, or practical and social barriers that are prevalent right now?
I can't claim to have looked around a lot, but I believe that it's rather uncommon. Nice find! My understanding is that what is problematic is when proprietary samples are used, as they can't be redistributed in their original form. I don't think the actual project files, scores or even loops pose any such problems, however.
Actually, making a license that "contaminates" a whole project is likely near impossible. There would always be ways around it, eg. only distributing the engine and having the users download the content themselves.
That seems to be the most prevalent interpretation, but there isn't really any clear response on this one. Hopefully they'll have a look at it in the CC-4 process.
This is just an impression I've gotten, but isn't it much more common for programmers to start the projects than artist? Maybe the artists would be more motivated if the programmers were implementing their visions rather than the other way around.
I think pfunked summarized it quite well. There are a few separate issues here:
Open content as such.
High barrier of entry.
Getting people to work for free on their spare time (especially for/with others).
The most obvious way to remove the last one is to simply pay people, like pfunked suggested. There are other ways, but they are much harder (if cheaper). As for the barrier of entry; it's certainly desireable to use FOSS, but in my opinion it's perfectly acceptable to use proprietary software to produce open content. The workflow should ideally be flexible in this regard.
In an ideal FaiF world all artist would already be using FOSS and default to using an open license. That's a rather huge leap to try to make all at once though.
I wonder if programmers are less reluctant to produce open content because of more stable day jobs? Artist on the other hand often have to try to sell their art on their own. So in a way, rather than a programmer doing free work on their "spare time" as a hobby, a better comparison might be a programmer spending a few hours of their work day on open software - without getting payed.
I was certain I featured that spaceship - a miss on my part.
As for the rest, I dunno. I'm not even sure what "featured" is to be used for, honestly; we already have "most favorites" - to me "features" should be a way to show off something that might otherwise not end up in the spotlight, but I don't think OGA is big enough to really need that :).
Indeed.
What I had in mind was thouroughly individually sampled musical instruments, of the kind were a single intstrument can reach several GB. In my experience CCMixter mostly has samples in the other sense :P. I don't browse CCMixter often though, so maybe they do have things like this.
...high quality open samples would be awesome. I guess they are rather hard to produce though :(.
I don't think it's only a matter of knowledge, but also of a (perceived?) lack of successful open art projects - in the software world there are a multitude of open licenses and programs, some of which has been around for ages.
I certainly agree though; this is primarily a question of knowledge/maturity/experience. My guess is that the same development will happen in art as in software; the more prevalent open content becomes, the more accepted it will be, and in turn more open content will be produced. It's a neat cycle, but I don't think it will reach critical mass just yet. Until it does, I think our best bet it to try to make it as simple and attractive as possible.
@Udi: yes, that's basically it. Of course there are artists with day jobs and freelancing programmers, so there are exceptions. On the whole though I'd say it holds. And certainly, quite a few artists does use FOSS projects to get an opportunity to work on something that interests them and make a name for themselves.
@Julies: I believe that is true. It is also not uncommon that experienced artists share their methods and workflows, even if they never use open licenses.
Anyway, I still say there're a few different issues here. Udi, could you clarify? Motivating people to work for free, FaiF art as such, or practical and social barriers that are prevalent right now?
I can't claim to have looked around a lot, but I believe that it's rather uncommon. Nice find! My understanding is that what is problematic is when proprietary samples are used, as they can't be redistributed in their original form. I don't think the actual project files, scores or even loops pose any such problems, however.
Actually, making a license that "contaminates" a whole project is likely near impossible. There would always be ways around it, eg. only distributing the engine and having the users download the content themselves.
That seems to be the most prevalent interpretation, but there isn't really any clear response on this one. Hopefully they'll have a look at it in the CC-4 process.
This is just an impression I've gotten, but isn't it much more common for programmers to start the projects than artist? Maybe the artists would be more motivated if the programmers were implementing their visions rather than the other way around.
Ok, I'll stop now...
I think pfunked summarized it quite well. There are a few separate issues here:
The most obvious way to remove the last one is to simply pay people, like pfunked suggested. There are other ways, but they are much harder (if cheaper). As for the barrier of entry; it's certainly desireable to use FOSS, but in my opinion it's perfectly acceptable to use proprietary software to produce open content. The workflow should ideally be flexible in this regard.
In an ideal FaiF world all artist would already be using FOSS and default to using an open license. That's a rather huge leap to try to make all at once though.
I wonder if programmers are less reluctant to produce open content because of more stable day jobs? Artist on the other hand often have to try to sell their art on their own. So in a way, rather than a programmer doing free work on their "spare time" as a hobby, a better comparison might be a programmer spending a few hours of their work day on open software - without getting payed.
Pages