10 Mar
2005
10 Mar
'05
6:03 p.m.
On Thu, 10 Mar, 2005 at 04:51PM -0500, Lee Revell spake thus:
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:50 -0500, John Check wrote:
I don't think this is a problem. Creative has never come after anyone
for making and distributing their own soundfonts. They seem to have
taken a hands-off attitude towards open source.
Well, they make it clear that the sf format is open. The problem is
that they seem to have a license for the actual *spec document* that
is at best vague and at worst restrictive.
So, if we don't hear from them, we'll just have to pass the link to
the document around rather than the document itself.
I have a link to it (along with other relevent stuff) at
http://dis-dot-dat.net/sfstuff/
Anyone with any other articles/software/libraries/whatever that would
be useful to list, please let me know. I suppose it's kind of like a
shared reference library.
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!
Lee
--
"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)