[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Freepats

On 2004-04-19 12:18:11 +0100 Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> 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 be nice.

    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/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: