thanks!!! you mention remixing is OK, what license do you publish your OST under specifically? /no need to reply

TLDR there’s a sliding scale of FREE to PROPRIETARY

COPYLEFT—PERMISSIVE—PROPRIETARY

in brief a CC (Creative Commons) license can emulate any license! it’s modular. all the clauses together look like this CC-BY-SA-NC-ND (CreativeCommons-(credit the author)-ShareAlike-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) and you can say mix and match any of those. as long as CC remains in the start it’s a widely spread and legally valid licensing!

permissive licenses (see acronyms like MIT, BSD, MPL, JFR, etc.) can in many ways be similar to a public domain license, which the CC license also can emulate btw - CC0 is what it’s called then. permissive licenses in short say “i’ve licensed it, now dog bless and gtfo! do whatever you want as long as i’m not held accountable!” which is like. it’s valid but has caused big organizations trouble when needing corporations to cooperate, notably with X11 - the first free libre open source windowing system since the 70s something something. it got wrecked because companies just took the code and improved the project under their own brand name. so it’s stepping and shitting on the shoulders of those who made it happen, basically never telling X11 came first while corporate marketing says “we totally made this ourselves- look it’ll revolutionize the industry! the only one to trust is OUR BRAND.” so even though programmers wanted to cooperate for the sake of the project and really couldn’t care less about their company’s grift: the hired programmers’ company overlords denied cooperation, legally, because permissive licenses are in one crucial way different from the above copyleft licenses: there is no ‘Share Alike’ clause to permissive licenses. this is sometimes taken for a good thing, sometimes taken for a bad thing. it truly means anybody can do anything and never let you know. that’s permissive licensing in a nutshell.

then there’s copyright. camp copyright… N(on)D(isclosure)A(greements) are the foundation of monopoly practice, meaning a party is forced into compliance and usually there is no other financial alternative to individuals with houses and rent than taking an NDA license on their work and workplace if they want the job. shitty license and it’s a cause of unreported evil in this world, literally. then there’s copyright, which while in effect can be “yay i’m the nice author do what you want.” however the reason COPYLEFT and PERMISSIVE came about was because corporations have famously and repeatedly misused copyright licenses by buying up “rights” to “intellectual property”, so even if the author is the nicest person, they’re maybe y’know dead at some point in their life or usually before then not legally the rightful owner of stuff they’ve authored and made themselves. yeah, imagine having no legal right to your passion project because of companies. then you have no or limited say in how legal any other person’s derivative stuff is. including your own! like with all those videogame series the directors and authors and artists and programmers want to make sequels to. the company executives and shareholders own the legal “rights”, so can sue people! just like Nintendo does. oh, i hear my strawargument say, but fandoms exist?! check mate, licensing advocate! okay strawargument. you give me pause. now hear my ACTUALLY. okay. actually that’s organizing under a boot that’s yet to stomp down on anyone at any time for any reason. i’m tired so no examples, just [sic] >:) bai

so whoever reads this far! (even if you skip ahead!) check out COPYLEFT and PERMISSIVE licenses!!! it’s always everyone’s, everytime, everywhere! most importantly..! this includes museums and archivists who will one day want to archive your silly little internet art and save it before companies shut down servers without warning (again [sic] because of my spoons)

/no reply necessary