On 2004-04-19 12:18:11 +0100 Brian May <email@example.com> wrote:
Brian> There are other issues with the GPL that might effect
Brian> soundfont files, not sure. For instance, would the
Brian> soundfont file be considered "source code" when making a
Brian> *.wav file?
I think it probably would. That and whatever else is the preferred
form for making modifications to the wav.
What if the *.wav file has since been edited in
Brian> a wav editor and cannot be automatically recreated?
So be it. It's just been compiled in an odd way. A description would
Brian> these reasons, I don't think it should be a required that
Brian> music files be GPL.
I don't see that it follows.
Brian> automatically get exclusive copyright of such a document,
Brian> as I consider it my own work. I would hope the same applies
Brian> with music generated with FreePat files.
Your copyright rests in the expressions in the document, not
necessarily in the graphics used to display it.
Brian> Personally, my opinion (depending on the above) would be to
Brian> use the GPL, so any modifications to the fonts themselves
Brian> will remain GPL, but allow an exception (if required) so
Brian> music created with the soundfont isn't restricted. If the
Brian> GPL doesn't do this, maybe the LGPL will do so?
If the GPL doesn't do what? You can surely grant exceptions to the GPL
if you want.
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ firstname.lastname@example.org
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/