Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Toby Smithe wrote:
I am looking for a sponsor for my package "fluid-soundfont".
* Package name : fluid-soundfont
Version : 3-1
Upstream Author : Frank Wen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://tsmithe.users.ubuntustudio.org/fluid-soundfont_r3.tar.gz
* License : MIT
Section : sound
I have been burned by soundfonts before, does Frank Wen have a site or
somesuch, describing how he made the soundfount, where he got the
instruments, etc?
I understand your concern, Henrique. However, the question still makes
me want to punch something. Do we really have to nit-pick a hundred or
more sets of samples to check whether each one is DFSG-free? Can we not
accept the upstream author's license so long as it remains unchallenged?
Would you subject a text font to such scrutiny?
Please don't take my remarks personally, these are real questions. We've
been campaigning / waiting for a suitable soundfont candidate for
something like 5 years (CMIIW). FluidR3 is the obvious candidate, it is
pretty ancient and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Frank Wen has not
kept records of all sample sources.
I fully realise that the font has to be sufficiently free from the
'tentacles of evil' that users could edit it in Swami and use it as a
basis for new distributable fonts and also use it in their compositions
without fear of retribution. This font has been out in the wild for
enough years, surely? OK, I know, assume nothing. So realistically, how
should we approach this? What real chance is there of getting it into
lenny / Hardy?
There are a couple of side issues here relating to recognition of
mimetypes. Nautilus thinks that SF2 files are video/x-msvideo, causing
it to wrongly assume they are some form of AVI and associate with Movie
players rather than Swami / FluidSynth; and SFARK files as
application/x-extension-sfArk or application/octet-stream (i.e.
unknown/unsupported). I know how to deal with this as a user, it just
would be good to set some reasonable defaults.
Toby, this is fantastic work. Thank you.
I suggest that the package should be distributed by debian-multimedia /
UbuntuStudio / 64 Studio initially to test the waters and someone
sensible raise at least an ITP so that any license violations can be
properly tracked using the BTS.
Please, please, please let's walk the extra mile for this package. How
can I help? I'm not a DD either. Are we ever going to be able to
distribute soundfonts? If not now, when?
cheers,
tim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
