[LAU] Software or performance?

Simon Edwards simon at simonzone.com
Sun Dec 2 06:04:35 EST 2007


Folderol wrote:
> For those who don't know, for some time I've made available all the
> voice patches I've created for ZynAddSubFX.
> However, for the first time I've been asked what license they are
> under, which presents a curious problem.
> Would these be best regarded as 'software'? - in which case I'd go for
> GPL2 or later, or are they more like a 'performance'? - where I would
> then go for creative commons BY-SA

(IANAL applies.) I guess it depends on what they want to do with the 
patch. For distribution purposes I would treat it like software and use 
GPL2 or later. The GPL doesn't place any conditions on use, only 
distribution which means that any sounds produced using the patch are 
not covered by the GPL. (The same as when GCC outputs a compiled 
program. GCC is GPL'ed, but it's output is not.)

I'm not sure how Creative Commons BY-SA could be used, or how you could 
see the patch is a kind of performance, unless you were claiming some 
sort of copyright on the sound the patch produces. I don't think that is 
what you want to do though.


Simon Edwards             | KDE-NL, Guidance tools, Guarddog Firewall
simon at simonzone.com       | http://www.simonzone.com/software/
Nijmegen, The Netherlands | "ZooTV? You made the right choice."

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list