18 Sep
2008
18 Sep
'08
3:52 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 19:18, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran(a)web.de> wrote:
2008/9/18 Anders Dahnielson
<anders(a)dahnielson.com>om>:
The SFZ 2.0 is currently only available in the book 'Cakewalk
Synthesizers'
Yes, that's the spec my errata in the forum topic try to correct. That's the
so called "SFZ 1.0 spec".
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 15:12, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran(a)web.de> wrote:
>
> 2008/9/18 Anders Dahnielson <anders(a)dahnielson.com>om>:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 14:28, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran(a)web.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> The sad truth is: There currently is no real open patch
specification.
> (And if there was one, it would take some time to
become spread and
> accepted.)
That's not true. SFZ is an open and free specification. I know, I'm
working
on an implementation of the SFZ 2.0 spec.
If it is free, where do I get that specification 2.0 ?
The last time I've had a look at it, the publication was out of date
and incomplete. by Simon Cann. Note that I'm not talking free
as in beer here.
I've tried to publish some errata for the 1.0 spec regarding stuff that
I've
come across:
https://bb.linuxsampler.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186
Thank you for the Information, Anders Dahnielson.
So the the specification is available, that's good.
Searching the web, I find this site:
http://www.cakewalk.com/DevXchange/sfz.asp
At the bottom I find:
"Copyright (c) 2008 by Cakewalk, Inc. All rights reserved."
That's the copyright notice regarding the content of the page as an
expression.
There is no further license information, but a note at the top:
"Soundware, software and hardware developers can create, use and
distribute the sfz format files for free, for either free or
commercial applications."
From the page, above the paragraph you quoted, stating
the intent of the
format:
"The goal behind the sfz format is to provide a free, simple, minimalistic
and expandable format to arrange, distribute and use audio samples with the
highest possible quality and the highest possible performance flexibility."
I think it's pretty clear that the intention of the SFZ format always have
been to be an open unencumbered format that anyone could use.
We are allowed to use *files* created in the format for "free" or
"commercial" applications
(with no further info, what "free" / "commercial" means in this
context)
That is a kind of vague freedom.
But the specification itself is still unfree (as in speach),
scince I'm not allowed to spread it reproduce it, give it to friends.
AFAIK, e.g. that's the case (or was) with the printed POSIX spec. Note that
it is the spec as an expression that is protected by the copyright notice,
not the idea (Fichte's distinction). You and me are free to write our own
description of the SFZ format (which I plan to do as part of libsfz).
--
Anders Dahnielson
<anders(a)dahnielson.com>