[linux-audio-user] sf2 soundfont spec license

james at dis-dot-dat.net james at dis-dot-dat.net
Thu Mar 10 09:44:56 EST 2005


On Thu, 10 Mar, 2005 at 11:26PM +1000, Mark Constable spake thus:
> Would anyone care to comment as to whether this means it's
> okay to redistribute this document, or not ?
> 
> "INTERNAL USE ONLY" could be a showstopper.
> 
> A LICENSE IS HEREBY GRANTED TO COPY, REPRODUCE, AND DISTRIBUTE
> THIS SPECIFICATION FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY. NO OTHER LICENSE 
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, TO ANY OTHER
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IS GRANTED OR INTENDED HEREBY.

Lets hope you don't get into trouble for passing this excerpt around
the net... :)

But seriously, we could just ask them.  I get a feeling they won't
mind.

> And, regardless of the status of (re)distributing the
> document itself, has anyone got a feel for the openness, or
> not, of the specification outlined within this document ?

>From the FAQ:

Is the SoundFont 2.0 format public?
 Yes. E-MU / ENSONIQ and Creative Technology are actively promoting
 SoundFont 2.0 as an open standard. We have worked diligently on
 getting complete, unambiguous documentation and a suite of tools
 available for developers who might want to use the SoundFont 2.0 format.

 
> Is it ultimately a waste of time to use this sf2 standard
> in conjunction with perpetual open source projects ?
> 
> If it is not open enough to take advantage of then is there
> any truly open soundfont-like standard anywhere on the planet?
> 
> The rest of it is here...
> 
> http://www.soundfont.com/documents/sfspec21.pdf

We could always just pass the link around...
 
> 

-- 
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb.  Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list