Hi! Thanks! The Linux binaries are pretty distro-agnostic. I used Godot game engine to make this tool.

@@stevendunn7928 Generally software used in film or game productions isn't credited unless it's a contractual obligation (like with Wwise and Fmod - both audio middleware for games). So unless an artist shares that on their own volition, it's unnknowable. And free software is not something artists want to brag about publicly because in the creative industry there's still a lot of "free tools ain't worth using" mentality. I think Audacity is very widely used everywhere for example, but it's not "the workhorse" and so little attention is paid to the fact it's free and open-source. There's recording studios using Ardour and Mixbus as the "workhorse", but I think plug-ins have better reach. So I think there's a high chance that something you hear on the radio or music festivals uses Surge XT or Vital, PaulStretch, maybe even PureData... Maybe ask in my community chat, there's people there who might know more :) chat.unfa.xyz

Oh you already had all these ideas xd should've watched before commenting

Geonkick is still GPL-licensed so it's FOSS, but the official builds cost money now. On Linux that's a non-issue, because Linux distributions usually make their own builds so you can install it fro free from repositories. It does affect Windows users, as it's necessary to compile it yourself otherwise which is a challenge. I suppose the logic is that users who are running non-free operating systems would be able to afford the convenience of getting a pre-build binary. Linux users at large might not even notice the change. It's very similar to how Ardour and Zrythm handle things.

Hey! Thank you! I'm not really able to do serious live performances - it'd require a lot of work, and I just don't have enough time to do that alongside other projects :)

Thanks!

@@QuotePilgrim I have since learned about transformative use and making music from samples is definitely a transformative process. However, I was also interested in the library's creator intent and if they weren't overriding licenses of other creators whom's samples were used. I have emailed Creative Commons and they told me they don't know how the license of samples can have an effect on music. It's easier when the original material is processed beyond recognition, but transformative use seems to occur whenever the resulting work cannot be a replacement for the source material. So unless your music just has the samples played one by one in a way that isn't artistic and clearly is meant to only "license wash" and make the track as easy to sample itself - you're fine. As I understand it now - a sample library's license demands for attribution, non-conmercial use and no derivatie works means that users aren't allowed to sell verbatim or modified copies of the *sample library*. I believe it does not apply to music created using the library, as that is transformative use, not a derivative one. Still - even creators of the CC licenses didn't provide me with a clear answer, so this is all speculation. BTW, I'm not giving legal advice, just sharing my personal interpretation. One might ask "what's the point of publishing a sample library if the license requires musicians to credit its use in their works metadata?". The library I think can be viewed as a tool, an instrument, but the tool depends on creative work of individuals who made the samples needed to make the library function. Yet any music that utilizes the library cannot be reversed into the library itself. The result is unique and not in any way could act as a replacement for the library. Hence - transformative use and a bordet beyond which the licensing requirements no longer apply. That's how I read it.

@@unfa00 Thank you for taking the time to respond. This really helps me understand where you stand on this. However, technically, _technically,_ you haven't answered the question that I actually asked. Don't worry, you don't have to answer it, I believe I have the information I need, I just think it is kinda funny that you weren't interested in engaging with the thought experiment whatsoever. I personally think if I tried to pull something like that, and made a paint store with a notice "by clicking 'purchase' you agree to credit me as co-creator of any artwork made using these paints", there is no way in heck a judge would rule in my favor if I tried to sue anyone who didn't credit me. This is 100% just my opinion, of course. Anyway, thank you again for you response, and have a nice day.

Thanks! I'm glad my ideas were useful to you! Yeah, it's sometimes way more efficient to end a session and come back the next day with a fresh mind, rather than to spend extra hours grinding when you've exhausted your creative capacity for the moment. Sometimes pushing through is the right choice, but sometimes it just drains your energy for no gain :)

It is still libre software, just started to sell official binaries (like Ardour has been doing for years). But you can still build it from source, and Linux distributions will do that for you. So on a free operating system you'll easily get Geonkick for free as well. I expect if you run Windows it'll be harder to build Geonkick from source, but still possible.