On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 19:18, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran@web.de> wrote:

2008/9/18 Anders Dahnielson <anders@dahnielson.com>:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 15:12, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran@web.de> wrote:
>>
>> 2008/9/18 Anders Dahnielson <anders@dahnielson.com>:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 14:28, Emanuel Rumpf <xbran@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 The last time I've had a look at it, the publication was out of date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.
>
> The SFZ 2.0 is currently only available in the book 'Cakewalk Synthesizers'
> 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

Yes, that's the spec my errata in the forum topic try to correct. That's the so called "SFZ 1.0 spec".

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@dahnielson.com>