10 Mar
2005
10 Mar
'05
10:44 a.m.
On Thu, 10 Mar, 2005 at 11:26PM +1000, Mark Constable spake thus:
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
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...