[linux-audio-user] sf2 soundfont spec license

[John Check]

On Thursday 10 March 2005 03:46 pm, John Check wrote:
> 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?

In the tradition of replying to my own questions:

whois soundfont.comRegistrant:
CREATIVE LABS, INC. (SOUNDFONT-DOM)
   1901 MCCARTHY BLVD
   MILPITAS, CA 95035-7427
   US

   Domain Name: SOUNDFONT.COM

   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
      Marketing, Internet  (YTEYTUZMFI)         
domainregadmin at creativelabs.com
      Creative Labs, Inc.
      1901 McCarthy Blvd
      Milpitas, CA 95035-7427
      US
      408-428-6600

DOH!