On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 01:45:03PM +0100, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > Hi David! > > 1) Usually the demo sounds included with synthesizers are considered > absolute freeware. Their purpose is to demonstrate that this synthesizer > can do any sound just as well, or even better than the competition. > Their purpose is to convince the prospective buyer that the light at the > end of the tunnel is not (entirely) electric, and they should hand over > their hard earned cash right away. > > 2) With a few tweeks, an otherwise very serious string quartet can be > turned into something extremely silly, which you would probably not like > to have coauthored. > > 3) Although commercial tunes are played 24/7 on radio stations, you will > not be able to recognize your own sounds, except in the case when they > are used unaltered with no postprocessing (which makes the discussion of > "derived work" moot.) That is to say: If it is not controlable, don't > bother making any rules. >
4) "Derived sounds?" Holy crap, what a can of worms /that/ is. 5) Preset patches and sequences are used all the time in commercial tunes, and a lot of people will choose to use a synth just because they heard that so-and-so used this-and-that to get a certain sound (808 clap/cowbell? Motif strings?). So, if your demos are any good (they must be if you want to license them ;), it might be worthwhile to let people use them as they wish. I don't know if this even applies to free software, though, so who knows, you might actually need to clamp down on those damned preset-using IP thieves. 6) Profit?! > cheers // Jens M Andreasen > > > On ons, 2004-01-14 at 11:31, David Olofson wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out what license to use for the demo sounds and > > songs that come with Audiality. I don't think the songs are of much > > interest beyond demonstrating the engine, so I'll probably just ask > > that people don't use them in their projects without permission. > > > > However, the sounds (or rather, the scripts that render them) are > > intended to be usable in about the same way as the rest of Audiality. > > That is, as is or modified, in Free/Open Source, freeware and > > commercial projects. No royalties, no advertising clause or anything. > > > > Here's the problem: I'd like derived sounds to remain open source, but > > I'm not sure it makes sense to require it, like the LGPL does. The > > X11 license might be more sensible. What do you think? > > > > > > //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate > > > > .- Audiality -----------------------------------------------. > > | Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. | > > | MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... | > > `-----------------------------------> http://audiality.org -' > > --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se --- > > > > >
