[linux-audio-user] sf2 soundfont spec license

[John Check]

On Thursday 10 March 2005 09:44 am, james at dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
> 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.
>

Anytime one has the authors email handy, that's a good idea.

> > 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 ?
> >

In light of the above, it's the actual "rendition" of the standard as recorded 
in that specific document that's at question. Like a copyright on a 
recording, as opposed to the copyright on the tune itself.

> > 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...

Since it's publicly available, that fulfills the need.

One could also make the interpretation that circulating it within the 
development community constitutes "internal". 
However, Mark's original email didn't supply sufficient background
WRT to the standards origin. Is there sufficient legal structure behind it?
IOW is it from a corporate structure with resources to make trouble?