hrglgrmpf, also, any decisions about release vs. recording level for CC?
2011-12-14 34809, 2011
hrglgrmpf
hmm, no
2011-12-14 34818, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I want to wait until nikki is around :-)
2011-12-14 34838, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I think it would prefer this: "always prefer release level"
2011-12-14 34816, 2011
hrglgrmpf
I like having them all at recording level in principle
2011-12-14 34849, 2011
hrglgrmpf
but a) we still need one at release level (for artwork, etc.) b) it reflects more what the artist says (he says: this *release* is under license X) c) there is no UI to easily attach an URL to all recordings
2011-12-14 34814, 2011
reosarevok
Yeah
2011-12-14 34826, 2011
hrglgrmpf
so I would restrict recording license URLs to two cases: mixed license releases and standalone recordings
2011-12-14 34828, 2011
reosarevok
I'd guideline for "at release level if applies to the whole release, at recording level if not"
2011-12-14 34849, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes
2011-12-14 34814, 2011
hrglgrmpf
as for hhgroups.com: I can do that :-). But it is strange that they don't specify the license on the release pages...
Says basically "all is that license, unless the specific release page says otherwise"
2011-12-14 34824, 2011
reosarevok
It's more or less a distribution portal
2011-12-14 34831, 2011
reosarevok
For people to upload demos and stuff for
2011-12-14 34838, 2011
reosarevok
*to
2011-12-14 34856, 2011
reosarevok
So I guess they just give the info when the user signs up, "you're releasing it like this"
2011-12-14 34808, 2011
reosarevok
And people just say yes and don't care
2011-12-14 34840, 2011
reosarevok
(because I doubt most random Spanish rappers care - as long as they can put their stuff there for free)
2011-12-14 34847, 2011
hrglgrmpf
yes
2011-12-14 34855, 2011
hrglgrmpf
google translate says: "All material and content that is hosted and available in the area of www.HHGroups.com is licensed under Creative Commons , except for the instrumental basis * that follow other rules of use and reproduction"
2011-12-14 34808, 2011
hrglgrmpf
do you have an example URL for such an "other license" release?
it is funny, the bot is far more correct than the users...
2011-12-14 34845, 2011
hrglgrmpf
a lot of CC links had the wrong license set
2011-12-14 34834, 2011
hrglgrmpf
so I don't even check if the license link is compatible with the chosen CC-link license
2011-12-14 34833, 2011
kepstin-laptop
so, it turns out that disabling the RDF webservice broke CD lookups in the main music players in many older (but still supported) versions of ubuntu :/
2011-12-14 34818, 2011
kepstin-laptop
was there no way that could have been left running or updated?
2011-12-14 34802, 2011
hrglgrmpf
that is pretty bad ... :-(
2011-12-14 34836, 2011
hrglgrmpf
maybe it can be switched on again?
2011-12-14 34858, 2011
ocharles
no
2011-12-14 34806, 2011
ocharles
it's deprecated, and has been for years *plural*
2011-12-14 34844, 2011
kepstin-laptop
ocharles: ubuntu never got the notice :/
2011-12-14 34803, 2011
ocharles
it's been blogged plenty of times though, there's not much more we could do
2011-12-14 34813, 2011
ocharles
it wasn't worth the effort to write the rdf service again for ngs
2011-12-14 34815, 2011
kepstin-laptop
admittedly, the person who saw this issue is running an ubuntu version from 2010 - but it's a long-term support release that's supposed to last to 2013.
2011-12-14 34843, 2011
hrglgrmpf
kepstin-laptop: doesn't that count as "bug-fix" in ubuntu-terms?
2011-12-14 34853, 2011
hrglgrmpf
(enabling CD support again)
2011-12-14 34857, 2011
kepstin-laptop
I've asked them to file a bug with ubuntu to get them to rebuild the player with version 3 of libmusicbrainz (it's using version 2 right now, but the player software supports either)
2011-12-14 34805, 2011
hrglgrmpf
still, someone need to backport the patches...
2011-12-14 34851, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hrglgrmpf: no backporting needed, the package just has to be recompiled. There's no reason that it shouldn't have worked all along, other than the ubuntu devs being stupid and building against the older version of libmusicbrainz.
2011-12-14 34824, 2011
hrglgrmpf
it's not stupid... when rebuilding aginst a newer version of a library *anything* can happen
2011-12-14 34831, 2011
hrglgrmpf
(crashes, feature loss, ...)
2011-12-14 34839, 2011
hrglgrmpf
that is why there are versions of libraries
2011-12-14 34806, 2011
hrglgrmpf
so if Ubuntu takes their job at least a tiny bit serious, they need to test if that old version is running file with the new lib
2011-12-14 34825, 2011
hrglgrmpf
s/file/fine/
2011-12-14 34851, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hrglgrmpf: the player software we're talking about here is rhythmbox, which /explicitly/ supports libmusicbrainz-2.x.x and libmusicbrainx-3.x.x
2011-12-14 34851, 2011
hrglgrmpf
but it should be done...
2011-12-14 34821, 2011
hrglgrmpf
kepstin-laptop: also in the LTS version? If so, it should be no problem I guess
2011-12-14 34835, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hrglgrmpf: even in the version shipped in LTS, yes (I checked)
2011-12-14 34806, 2011
hrglgrmpf
ok, you can file a bug report then (if the user doesn't.....)
2011-12-14 34820, 2011
kepstin-laptop
well, I've sent them an email asking them to. Hopefully they will... (I don't use Ubuntu)
since the audio encoding on gold cds, hqcd, shm cd, etc. are all /exactly/ the same as regular cds, the things they could possibly be different in is durability/longevity.
2011-12-14 34819, 2011
kepstin
gold cds are apparently harder to read for some cd players than regular cds, because they're less reflective :)
