10 Mar
2005
10 Mar
'05
4:50 p.m.
On Thursday 10 March 2005 03:46 pm, John Check wrote:
On Thursday 10 March 2005 09:44 am,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
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.
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(a)creativelabs.com
Creative Labs, Inc.
1901 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035-7427
US
408-428-6600
DOH!
On Thu, 10 Mar, 2005 at 11:26PM +1000, Mark
Constable spake thus:
Anytime one has the authors email handy, that's a good idea.
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...