Free samples out there, but ones which can be used for COMMERCIAL purposes ?

[enroe]

In case of "use 2" it is different: For nearly all free samplesets
the rule is: You can of course create an new sampleset - but
you have to set it free for everybody - and you have to provide
a link to the authors. In this case a commercial exploitation
is excluded - with good cause!

I got a Font online yesterday and it stipulated that it was 100% free, but I must pass that font on with the same license agreement as I got it (i.e. I can't charge for it).

Oooops, this has a very bad aftertaste.

You want to take free samplesets - change some things, stick
your name on them and then sell them?

The philospohy of "free" and "open source" is a very
special one. It is the idea, that things which are based on
ressources which we all get for free: education, attention and
gratuity from our neighbours and from the society - that the
herefrom resulting things are also free!

It is the idea that everybody has access to tools and ideas
again - without financial discrimination. It is the idea that
not everything must be commercialized. It is the uttermost
democratic idea that every person can share our culture.

Now what you try to do seems to be a parasitic misuse
of this idea.

[Bansaw]

Now what you try to do seems to be a parasitic misuse
of this idea.

Not at all. You underestimate the goodwill of people, and some personality types. I have in the past given away stuff that has been used by other people to their profit. And I was glad of that. I am happy to see other people prosper.

There are plenty of people giving away free training all over youtube as a resource (for example) which is used by others to prosper themselves in their livelihood.

The whole idea of CC0 is that people are generous and don't mind their stuff being used liberally. Its not a bad aftertaste to them.
Those people who would have a bad aftertaste stipulate that their should not be used commercially. Like my font situation - the font is 100% free, but I read the license very carefully and it said that it was to be passed on freely.
In the case of the font author , he would have had a bad aftertaste. In the case of other people, they are happy. Just depends on the person.
If I had released some stuff on CC0 and heard my stuff in a commercial song I could have one of two reactions:
a) Envy - "Heck, they used my stuff, I don't like it and I feel cheated"
b) Pride - "Wow, my stuff was good enough to be used by someone else. Sounds good."

People who fall into the a) category, don't usually give away their stuff on CC0. The b's do.

I read licenses very very carefully, and I am proud to say that I don't have any pirated software at all. I am very respectful of peoples wishes.
If you personally have a bad aftertaste, then you choose to not consciously put a CC0 license on your stuff.