Re: The GPL and soundfonts
Andrew Sidwell wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. That last paragraph was meant to
> indicate WAV files which were derived from MIDI files via use of
> non-free soundfonts, not the original MIDI file itself.
The DFSG would require that the soundfont license be "DFSG free" in
order for the WAV to be considered DFSG free, IMHO.
The issue of whether the fonts can be combined with the GPL MIDI is
trickier. Conservatively, I would say that this requires the soundfont
license to be GPL-compatible. This is based on the idea that the
MIDI+soundfonts WAV is a "derivative work" of both the MIDI and the
soundfonts and not merely a "use" of the MIDI.
However, if the license on the soundfonts is DFSG free so that the
resulting two entities: MIDI and soundfonts can be distributed under
DFSG free terms independently, then you might want to simply ask the
MIDI creator to add an exemption, just like the one GPL graphic fonts
usually use to allow PS or PDF documents that embed the font without
having to GPL the documents' contents. In fact you could probably lift
the boilerplate for that from one of the graphic fonts already in
Debian. It probably was not their intent to restrict rendering of their
MIDI.
IMHO, the license of the sequencing software you used is completely
irrelevant. You USE a toolchain when you create with it, you don't
DERIVE from it (the exception being things like libraries -- or
soundfonts -- that get incorporated into the resulting work).
So, the soundfont license needs to be very permissive, but I don't think
there should be any concern about the tool used to create it.
Of course, the sourcecode requirement would probably insist that both
the MIDI and the soundfonts are provided as source for the WAV.
HTH, IANAL, TINLA, etc.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
Reply to: