Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing the music license fee for our current release video. This is a one-time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, or otherwise.
Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only days away.
There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off ask to pay him back for it.
Please vote: A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. B. Don't reimburse.
Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work for remixing or uploading to gitlab.
Thanks!
Abstain.
The details for the CC license can be found attached to the vectors issue here: https://gitlab.com/inkscape/vectors/content/-/issues/103#note_935463137
I should note that Ryan has said he will cover half the cost if the PLC decides not to reimburse. Similar to previous descussion on cost over runs and getting-the-job-done™ I will understand if the rest of the board votes against reimbursement for this music CC license.
Martin,
On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 19:51 +0100, C R wrote:
Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing the music license fee for our current release video. This is a one- time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, or otherwise.
Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only days away.
There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off ask to pay him back for it.
Please vote: A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. B. Don't reimburse.
Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work for remixing or uploading to gitlab.
Thanks! _______________________________________________ Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Vote B.
Thank you Martin for getting this done, and freeing more music to less restrictive licensing, that's good for the world. But I don't think we should reimburse for things that weren't approved before hand. I realize that's process, but I do believe it is important process. Taking my board member hat off, personally, I'll throw my name into the mix and split it thirds with Martin and Ryan. Thanks again Martin for making this happen. Ted On May 4 2022, at 1:51 pm, C R cajhne@gmail.com wrote:
Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing the music license fee for our current release video. This is a one-time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, or otherwise.
Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only days away.
There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off ask to pay him back for it.
Please vote: A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. B. Don't reimburse.
Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work for remixing or uploading to gitlab.
Thanks! _______________________________________________ Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
I vote A. - It's how I would have voted on this if there was time to vote to approve it beforehand. The right thing to do is reimburse, since it's a cost for the project - it benefits no one but the project, which is precisely the reason people give the project money to begin with. It was also something asked for by the Vectors team to get this license. It makes no sense to me to vote differently because it wasn't voted on, when we are voting on it now.
-C
I am a bit uncomfortable voting to approve an expenditure after-the-fact but the amount in question is relatively small and the need was urgent.
I'll vote A.
Tav
----- Original Message ----- | From: "C R" cajhne@gmail.com | To: "Inkscape Board" inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org | Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 8:51:12 PM | Subject: [Inkscape-board] VOTE: Reimburse Martin for video music fee | | | | Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing | the music license fee for our current release video. This is a | one-time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, | or otherwise. | | | Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive | license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it | with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. | The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is | going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only | days away. | | | There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but | that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that | was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off | ask to pay him back for it. | | | Please vote: | A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly | license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. | B. Don't reimburse. | | | Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better | from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work | for remixing or uploading to gitlab. | | | Thanks! | _______________________________________________ | Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- | inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org | To unsubscribe send an email to | inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org |
I vote A for this given the special circumstances.
I'm also not comfortable with the after-the-fact reimbursement votes. That said, I'm still going to put forth a similar one regarding reimbursing Ryan for the gift to Bryce, but I don't foresee it being something I will get on board with again moving forward.
Cheers, Josh
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:51 AM C R cajhne@gmail.com wrote:
Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing the music license fee for our current release video. This is a one-time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, or otherwise.
Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only days away.
There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off ask to pay him back for it.
Please vote: A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. B. Don't reimburse.
Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work for remixing or uploading to gitlab.
Thanks! _______________________________________________ Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand how the project came into this "accidental cost" situation... From my understanding, everything the project creates or funds is under a copyleft license, which means CC-BY-SA (or CC-BY as it's compatible) for assets (and we make it quite clear in the about screen contest, for instance) - So was this music created / contracted specifically for this project under a non-foss license and how did that happen ? Or was it chosen for this project despite the wrong license ? It's clearly ok to pay for music in videos, but is the music cost usually separate/additional from the budget for the creation of the video ?
Here from my pov we are implicitly voting on "The Inkscape project spends a part of its donations to release that specific music from a non-foss license into the copyleft world", which is a nice gesture to the world and my vote is /(a)/ because as far as I understand doing so has benefits in particular to our release video for a "small" cost, but I'd still like to know if there was a miscommunication somewhere that could have been prevented…
Music was recommended by one of our members. The license was CC-BY-ND, which is not incompatible with CC-BY-SA, it just has different requirements from the author, including "No Derivatives". We learned that the ND license essentially prevents us from editing it to fit the video. I did not know this, and neither did the author of the track when choosing the License type (I believe Doc educated him on it in talks to switch over the license). So we learned that ND is not suitable for our video mixing needs.
So I re-did the video music to mix it with the old music we were using to fix it. This is when Martin offered to pay for the license so we could still have new music, and no one thought that was a bad idea. I figured it wouldn't be a problem to reimburse him.
We have never ever bought or paid for music to be created for the project. In the past we just spend tons of time trying to find good tracks that have the right feeling and choose the least garbage of those tracks. There is a LOT of garbage to sort through, and being a bit more flexible with the license gives more choice of good tracks which fit better.
The project neither paid me to re-do the music, nor to look for new music in this round as part of the video project. I volunteered that bit because I've basically been ignoring asks to get new music for the last video, and thought it was good to put in a bit of extra non-paid time to get a new track for everyone to enjoy and make everyone happy. That didn't work so well. :)
So yes, we very much need to spell out the type of licenses acceptable for music in the video for future video requirements. Be prepared to pay extra for the time it will take to find good CC-BY-SA tracks.
-C
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:56 PM Marc Jeanmougin marc@jeanmougin.fr wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand how the project came into this "accidental cost" situation... From my understanding, everything the project creates or funds is under a copyleft license, which means CC-BY-SA (or CC-BY as it's compatible) for assets (and we make it quite clear in the about screen contest, for instance) - So was this music created / contracted specifically for this project under a non-foss license and how did that happen ? Or was it chosen for this project despite the wrong license ? It's clearly ok to pay for music in videos, but is the music cost usually separate/additional from the budget for the creation of the video ?
Here from my pov we are implicitly voting on "The Inkscape project spends a part of its donations to release that specific music from a non-foss license into the copyleft world", which is a nice gesture to the world and my vote is *(a)* because as far as I understand doing so has benefits in particular to our release video for a "small" cost, but I'd still like to know if there was a miscommunication somewhere that could have been prevented…
-- Mc
On 5/4/22 20:51, C R wrote:
Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing the music license fee for our current release video. This is a one-time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, or otherwise.
Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only days away.
There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off ask to pay him back for it.
Please vote: A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. B. Don't reimburse.
Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work for remixing or uploading to gitlab.
Thanks!
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
All votes are in:
Martin : Abstain Ted: B Chris: A Tav: A Josh: A Marc: A
The item passes. Martin, please contact Karen and Pono for the reimbursement. And thanks again.
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:31 PM C R cajhne@gmail.com wrote:
Music was recommended by one of our members. The license was CC-BY-ND, which is not incompatible with CC-BY-SA, it just has different requirements from the author, including "No Derivatives". We learned that the ND license essentially prevents us from editing it to fit the video. I did not know this, and neither did the author of the track when choosing the License type (I believe Doc educated him on it in talks to switch over the license). So we learned that ND is not suitable for our video mixing needs.
So I re-did the video music to mix it with the old music we were using to fix it. This is when Martin offered to pay for the license so we could still have new music, and no one thought that was a bad idea. I figured it wouldn't be a problem to reimburse him.
We have never ever bought or paid for music to be created for the project. In the past we just spend tons of time trying to find good tracks that have the right feeling and choose the least garbage of those tracks. There is a LOT of garbage to sort through, and being a bit more flexible with the license gives more choice of good tracks which fit better.
The project neither paid me to re-do the music, nor to look for new music in this round as part of the video project. I volunteered that bit because I've basically been ignoring asks to get new music for the last video, and thought it was good to put in a bit of extra non-paid time to get a new track for everyone to enjoy and make everyone happy. That didn't work so well. :)
So yes, we very much need to spell out the type of licenses acceptable for music in the video for future video requirements. Be prepared to pay extra for the time it will take to find good CC-BY-SA tracks.
-C
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:56 PM Marc Jeanmougin marc@jeanmougin.fr wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand how the project came into this "accidental cost" situation... From my understanding, everything the project creates or funds is under a copyleft license, which means CC-BY-SA (or CC-BY as it's compatible) for assets (and we make it quite clear in the about screen contest, for instance) - So was this music created / contracted specifically for this project under a non-foss license and how did that happen ? Or was it chosen for this project despite the wrong license ? It's clearly ok to pay for music in videos, but is the music cost usually separate/additional from the budget for the creation of the video ?
Here from my pov we are implicitly voting on "The Inkscape project spends a part of its donations to release that specific music from a non-foss license into the copyleft world", which is a nice gesture to the world and my vote is *(a)* because as far as I understand doing so has benefits in particular to our release video for a "small" cost, but I'd still like to know if there was a miscommunication somewhere that could have been prevented…
-- Mc
On 5/4/22 20:51, C R wrote:
Hey folks. This is just a quickie ask to reimburse Martin for footing the music license fee for our current release video. This is a one-time cost, and not setting any precedent for future video costs, or otherwise.
Those in the video discussion on GitLab wanted a more permissive license for the new video music which would allow us to upload it with the video assets, so they can be used freely under CC-BY-SA. The decision was made in haste because the author of the music is going on holiday and needs the money now, and our release is only days away.
There are lots of things we can do to prevent this in the future, but that's quite beside the point imho. This is an accidental cost that was covered by Martin, and I think it's not too much of a one-off ask to pay him back for it.
Please vote: A. Reimburse 91 Euros to Martin for paying for a FOSS-friendly license for the current video music track for the project's benefit. B. Don't reimburse.
Note: In the future we will be using exclusively CC-BY-SA or better from the beginning since we discovered that CC-BY-ND doesn't work for remixing or uploading to gitlab.
Thanks!
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
On May 6 2022, at 3:31 pm, C R cajhne@gmail.com wrote:
So yes, we very much need to spell out the type of licenses acceptable for music in the video for future video requirements. Be prepared to pay extra for the time it will take to find good CC-BY-SA tracks.
I'm not sure of the cost/trade-offs, but it seems the other answer is that we could pay someone for a track or to make the music that we want. Perhaps not for minor releases, but for 2.0 pay for a song that we could use in all the videos for the 2.x series. Might be interesting for continuity, not sure if that'd restrict the potential for the release videos too much though. Ted
On Sat, 2022-05-07 at 16:24 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
I'm not sure of the cost/trade-offs, but it seems the other answer is that we could pay someone for a track or to make the music that we want. Perhaps not for minor releases, but for 2.0 pay for a song that we could use in all the videos for the 2.x series. Might be interesting for continuity, not sure if that'd restrict the potential for the release videos too much though.
If it's a long enough composition, there might be different motif in the track that can be picked out for different releases. A proper musian would be able to say for sure how useful that might be.
Martin,
Buying a prexisting track will generally be out of the question if you want CC-BY-SA since it essentially means that track is liberated from restrictions and may no longer be a source of income for the artist. I'm still not sure how Doc got that deal. Maybe the artist is counting on the obscurity of our copy to save him from losing income on it.
Speaking of which, we could totally use this same track over and over from now on, but I think people will complain if we don't change it up.
Custom music is expensive. As expensive or potentially much more than an entire video. Probably shouldn't expect it to be made with FOSS, either as its super rare to find musicians using FOSS solutions over proprietary ones.
That said, I'm fine with using a track decided on or made for the project in future videos provided the quality and mood fits. I'm just not qualified to do make such a track myself. :)
On Sat, May 7, 2022, 22:27 doctormo@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2022-05-07 at 16:24 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
I'm not sure of the cost/trade-offs, but it seems the other answer is that we could pay someone for a track or to make the music that we want. Perhaps not for minor releases, but for 2.0 pay for a song that we could use in all the videos for the 2.x series. Might be interesting for continuity, not sure if that'd restrict the potential for the release videos too much though.
If it's a long enough composition, there might be different motif in the track that can be picked out for different releases. A proper musian would be able to say for sure how useful that might be.
Martin,
On Sat, 2022-05-07 at 23:38 +0100, C R wrote:
it essentially means that track is liberated from restrictions and may no longer be a source of income for the artist.
There is a difference between copyleft and non-copyleft licenses.
Say CC-BY-SA and CC-BY. There is very rarely any financial loss to licensing with a copyleft license since most corperate users will absolutely not want to license their whole video/podcast etc under the same share alike license.
It opens it up to other open source users. Yes. But it doesn't open it up to just anyone.
But comissioning is always better because you can get good terms, and making good relationships with free culture musians is also a way to do a solid barter. If we wanted to work for the music.
Martin,
On Fri, 2022-05-06 at 21:56 +0200, Marc Jeanmougin wrote:
Here from my pov we are implicitly voting on "The Inkscape project spends a part of its donations to release that specific music from a non-foss license into the copyleft world", which is a nice gesture to the world and my vote is (a) because as far as I understand doing so has benefits in particular to our release video for a "small" cost, but I'd still like to know if there was a miscommunication somewhere that could have been prevented…
There is a lesson to be learned and it is to be much more careful with both selection of outside media and licenses of suggested media. Because I think different contributors have different levels of understanding for open source licensing the media team is more educated now than it was before.
On Fri, 2022-05-06 at 21:48 +0100, C R wrote:
The item passes. Martin, please contact Karen and Pono for the reimbursement. And thanks again.
The extra cost was unexpected, and I took unilateral decisions because the music author was about to go on vacation and it was important to act swiftly. We don't have any project flexibility for this kind of, shall we say executive style decision making. And I knew that when making my decision to not ask the PLC first.
Some may say that I'm taking a hit for the project, or for Adam, or for Chris. But I had my big boy pants on when I spent my money to solve a problem quickly rather than consensually. I don't want anyone feeling like I'm not getting what's fair. And it makes me uncomfortable to impress upon the PLC a personal decision.
Chris, I know you want to do right by me, but this is one of those times when we take the hits we need to so we can learn how to do it better next time. I really do appreicate you sticking up for my interests and putting together this vote and why you think it's the right thing to do.
I won't be seeking reimbursement. But I will take up Ted and Ryan's offer to split the costs with me, if they still want to.
Martin,
participants (7)
-
C R -
doctormo＠gmail.com -
Josh Andler -
Marc Jeanmougin -
Martin Owens -
tavmjong＠free.fr -
Ted Gould