at present, all entries are submitted to BotB with a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommerical ShareAlike License

. this obliges anybody redistributing or adapting the work to credit that BotBr, and forbids anybody from using it commercially.

i think that the option to use the Creative Commons 0 Public Domain Dedication

tool instead should also be available to BotBrs who want to waive all their ownership rights, even those protected by CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. any work submitted with this CC0 1.0 dedication would effectively enter the public domain immediately.

this would not revoke BotB's existing right to distribute their work (in fact it would render that right redundant since the work would be free for anybody to distribute how they wish for all time).

some people feel very strongly that information wants to be free and don't care to be credited or to claim a cut of profit. if somebody wants to relinquish ownership of their own work and add it to the common heritage of humanity, they should be able to.

this probably would be very confusing to newcomers who don't understand any of the copyright legal stuff, and honestly i don't see many people opting for it, despite our culture encouraging the sort of thing you describe?

i mean if you do think you'd rather an option obviously comment here, but also with ideas to make it less confusing for people who aren't keen on these kinds of things - i think that'd be helpful

well i guess OP was kind of coy but yes i would certainly choose that option if it was available. if it turns out that i'm alone in this then i guess it was a bad suggestion.

as for avoiding confusing noobs: have a "preferred license" setting tucked away in the options menu that determines which license agreement appears to be ticked upon submitting an entry. that way no one would be confused by it unless they specifically went looking for it.

serious question bc this is also not my area of expertise: is there something about the licensing that stops you from being able to share the music somewhere else with cc0 licensing to achieve that same end (just not on botb itself)?

to me it also might be somewhat confusing as "a person coming here looking for music for my thing" and having a small minority of things be a different license than the others, it might be easy to assume all things here were under the same licensing unless it's a loudly indicated part of all entries (such as on newgrounds) and idk if i vibe with that too much

wrt your question, all the information i can find online is about re-releasing work with a more restrictive license, rather than a more permissive one. i've asked reddit

for all the good it'll do me.

as for the second point - yeah. it might be confusing.

Adding options for CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and CC-BY-NC would also be nice.

whenever someone asks me if they can use botb entry X on their personal project Y i always respond "ask the botbr"

i'm not gonna totally shut this down but also options makes things confusing and i'd have to write a filtering tool into the browser maybe

i dont have much to say on this, but something i guess is related somewhat? is that when i used to use botb radio for the background of streams -- i got copyright strikes from chiptune artists on youtube. it was kinda disheartening.

it's their music and they are free to distribute and/or protect it however they wish

some of the youtube videos get content warnings before i publish them so i usually skip those

as someone slightly familiar w licensing botb tracks: licenses are not exclusive of other licenses. if someone wants to use your work uncredited and/or commercially they can always just ask you and you can say yes or no (or "yes, but what if you pay me")

you could also write "this work is available under a CC0 license" in your track description or something and skip the asking part