i think something might be wrong with the way cc licenses are automatically assigned to tracks, but it might just be my ignorance…

1) in the choquett mix i just uploaded, i used a kcentric blurb. he’s assigned an Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 to the track that i used, but when i uploaded my mix i had the option of choosing the attribution license… i thought non-commercial was inherited? or did i get that wrong…

2) i assigned the same license (attribution-non commercial) to my remix, but when i downloaded the mp3 and looked at the song info, the license assigned is the attribution license:

2006 lo tag blanco Licensed to the public under http://creativecommons.org/... Verify at http://ccmixter.org/media/f...

sorry if this is just a misunderstanding on my part, or has already been discussed somewhere else…

hmmm, something about you and that remix form ;)

ok, do me a favor and don’t touch the file or any of the attributes (name, tags, etc.) I’ll take a look at this later tonight.

I see a lot of remixes that are licensed under sampling+ although some of the sources are by-nc(-sa). This seems like a very critical bug.

Some recent examples of remixes that violate a source’s license:
East of Vienna (and many more that use Fort Minor samples)
Prayer for Iraq (and many more using Magnatune sample pool)

This seems to be related with the sampling+, as all the remixes that correctly list sources have at least one sampling+ source, which somehow seems to override by-nc or by-nc-sa in sources. (I haven’t spotted any nc-sampling+ derivated remixes released under sampling+, so I’m just guessing there are none.)

I flagged these two songs, as they clearly violate the terms of the samples.