Re: No source code for wesnoth-musicg
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:57:47AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Guilherme de Siqueira Pastore <firstname.lastname@example.org> [120423 02:29]:
> > I obviously do not disagree that, if the authors
> > "explicity refused to release source", their work is blatantly non-free.
> One should still be cautious what the "source" in "release source"
> meant. For most of my C programs I explicitly refuse to release any
> scribbling papers I may have developed some concepts on, will not allow
> my brain-content to be copied (even if it was possible) to get the idea
> behind the code back nor do I usually publish my editor config with the
> keybinding although they are definitely part of my prefered way to edit
> any C code. And still I claim I release all the "source" (even in GPL
> sense). In some cases the question what the "source" is can be a
> hard one. That there is something people refuse to release and some
> other people claim to be the source is only a problem once the question
> what source is is answered in a way that that is the source (or would be
> the source if it existed in case you allow conditional definitions).
If I understand the already cited Wesnoth forum threads correctly, the OGG
files are synthetically generated. The artists use a collection of samples
(sound bank) and a program which arranges these samples according to a
precise variant of a musical score.
The kinds of modifications I see that one might want to make to the music:
- Replace an instrument by something more suitable for a specific epoch.
- Bugfix a single note in the score.
- Remix the entire track.
All of these are possible with what the artist has. None is possible with
the OGG file they provide. So I think we have a clear case of refusal to
release source code.