14 Jan
2004
14 Jan
'04
3:57 p.m.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 19.36, Thomas Webb wrote:
--- David Olofson <david(a)olofson.net> wrote:
Interesting point.
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10.31,
will(a)malefactor.org wrote:
[...]
Actually, I think the solution is rather simple.
Basically, a patch for a synth can be thought of as a
"sound" in the sonic sense and a "patch" in the
software sense. The "sound" is public domain because
of the absurdities already discussed. Any sound made
by synths, closed or open source are almost always
public domain. However, the patch may be licensed as
you wish. 4) "Derived sounds?" Holy crap, what a
can of
worms /that/ is. The way I see it, either
A) There doesn't need to be a special license. You can
put the patch under any license and it will allow the
user to use the sound as they wish, but puts
restrictions/conditions if he/she wishes to
redistribute the sound.
or
The problem with this in my case, is that the normal music
distribution format would probably be "modules". That is, compressed
archives containing a MIDI file and some scripts. The main reasons
are file size (the ten demos + sounds fit in 62 kB, and ~55 kB of
that is MIDI files) and not having to decide on rendering quality or
compression settings.
So, you *would* actually use the patches - not just the resulting
audio data.
B) A special license must be drafted to allow this.
...or I just put the patches *and* sounds in the public domain. What
do I have to lose...?
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- Audiality -----------------------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. |
| MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... |
`-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---