>>>>> "Brian" == Brian May <email@example.com> writes:
Mark> Using "source code" notes to create a musical audio sequence
Mark> would not be a derivative in the same sense as modifying the
Mark> sound font to create a different instrument, or to
Mark> transcribe the raw wav and meta-info into another format,
Mark> that would be a derivative.
Mark> As above, I don't think rendering a wav file from sound
Mark> fonts would be considered a derivative in the same sense
Mark> that re-engineering the sound font into yet another sound
Mark> font would indeed be a derivative.
Mark> As in the content of a document would not be considered a
Mark> derivative of the any binary type face used in the process,
Mark> a musical composition would not be considered a derived work
Mark> of the sound font material.
>>> Personally, my opinion (depending on the above) would be to
>>> use the GPL, so any modifications to the fonts themselves will
>>> remain GPL, but allow an exception (if required) so music
>>> created with the soundfont isn't restricted. If the GPL
>>> doesn't do this, maybe the LGPL will do so?
Mark> I also lean towards the GPL, if it fits.
I would suggest you use the GPL, and add a note somewhere that you
interpret the GPL as above. If anyone disagrees with your
interpretation (and so far nobody has), then the issue can be resolved
at that time.
To do this, you could add the GPL COPYING file to the archive, and
then a COPYRIGHT file that lists the copyright holders, and the fact
the files are licensed for use under the GPL.
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: Freepats
- From: Ryan Underwood <email@example.com>