1 Dec
2007
1 Dec
'07
4:47 p.m.
For those who don't know, for some time I've made available all the
voice patches I've created for ZynAddSubFX.
However, for the first time I've been asked what license they are
under, which presents a curious problem.
Would these be best regarded as 'software'? - in which case I'd go for
GPL2 or later, or are they more like a 'performance'? - where I would
then go for creative commons BY-SA
I'd be interested in peoples opinions.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
1 Dec
1 Dec
9:53 p.m.
On Saturday 01 December 2007 15:47:08 Folderol wrote:
For those who don't know, for some time I've
made available all the
voice patches I've created for ZynAddSubFX.
However, for the first time I've been asked what license they are
under, which presents a curious problem.
Would these be best regarded as 'software'? - in which case I'd go for
GPL2 or later, or are they more like a 'performance'? - where I would
then go for creative commons BY-SA
I'd be interested in peoples opinions.
Off the top of my head and as a first cut I would ask if you want the
preferred format source requirements of the GPL2 or not...
all the best,
drew
2 Dec
2 Dec
1:56 a.m.
On 2007-12-02 03:54 pm, Folderol wrote:
For those who don't know, for some time I've
made available all the
voice patches I've created for ZynAddSubFX.
However, for the first time I've been asked what license they are
under, which presents a curious problem.
Would these be best regarded as 'software'? - in which case I'd go for
GPL2 or later, or are they more like a 'performance'? - where I would
then go for creative commons BY-SA
I'd be interested in peoples opinions.
FWIW there is an example of a gpl license with exception at the
bottom of this posting...
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-audio-users/msg48475.html
--markc
7:04 a.m.
Hi,
Folderol wrote:
For those who don't know, for some time I've
made available all the
voice patches I've created for ZynAddSubFX.
However, for the first time I've been asked what license they are
under, which presents a curious problem.
Would these be best regarded as 'software'? - in which case I'd go for
GPL2 or later, or are they more like a 'performance'? - where I would
then go for creative commons BY-SA
(IANAL applies.) I guess it depends on what they want to do with the
patch. For distribution purposes I would treat it like software and use
GPL2 or later. The GPL doesn't place any conditions on use, only
distribution which means that any sounds produced using the patch are
not covered by the GPL. (The same as when GCC outputs a compiled
program. GCC is GPL'ed, but it's output is not.)
I'm not sure how Creative Commons BY-SA could be used, or how you could
see the patch is a kind of performance, unless you were claiming some
sort of copyright on the sound the patch produces. I don't think that is
what you want to do though.
cheers,
--
Simon Edwards | KDE-NL, Guidance tools, Guarddog Firewall
simon(a)simonzone.com | http://www.simonzone.com/software/
Nijmegen, The Netherlands | "ZooTV? You made the right choice."
3 Dec
3 Dec
4:29 p.m.
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:04:35 +0100
Simon Edwards <simon(a)simonzone.com> wrote:
Hi,
Folderol wrote:
Thanks everybody for your suggestions.
It looks like the general consensus is to regard these as code. This is
also the opinion of Miguel who made the original query. I particularly
like the suggestion that Zyn. is the 'interpreter' of the program, and
to whoever it was that asked, yes banks files are XML. Also, in the
same way that a hardware synth makes no claims on the music produced
with it, I don't think there could be any contention here.
Unless I hear an irrefutable objection, I'll put my work under GPL V 2
or later and put the appropriate message in the zip file.
With that said, some of my patches are based on work by others
including Paul. I will check with these people and remove any from my
collection that are objected to.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
For those who don't know, for some time
I've made available all the
voice patches I've created for ZynAddSubFX.
However, for the first time I've been asked what license they are
under, which presents a curious problem.
Would these be best regarded as 'software'? - in which case I'd go for
GPL2 or later, or are they more like a 'performance'? - where I would
then go for creative commons BY-SA
(IANAL applies.) I guess it depends on what they want to do with the
patch. For distribution purposes I would treat it like software and use
GPL2 or later. The GPL doesn't place any conditions on use, only
distribution which means that any sounds produced using the patch are
not covered by the GPL. (The same as when GCC outputs a compiled
program. GCC is GPL'ed, but it's output is not.)
I'm not sure how Creative Commons BY-SA could be used, or how you could
see the patch is a kind of performance, unless you were claiming some
sort of copyright on the sound the patch produces. I don't think that is
what you want to do though.
cheers, 
11 Dec
11 Dec
7 p.m.
Folderol wrote:
Unless I hear an irrefutable objection, I'll put
my work under GPL V 2
or later and put the appropriate message in the zip file.
And don't forget that you can always re-release them under a different
license if you find that GPL2 is too restrictive in some way.
6194
days inactive
6204
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
drew Roberts -
Folderol -
Mark Constable -
Robert Persson -
Simon Edwards