On Wednesday 14 January 2004 19.36, Thomas Webb wrote: > --- David Olofson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 January 2004 10.31, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [...] > > > > > 4) "Derived sounds?" Holy crap, what a can of > > > > worms /that/ is. > > Actually, I think the solution is rather simple. > Basically, a patch for a synth can be thought of as a > "sound" in the sonic sense and a "patch" in the > software sense. The "sound" is public domain because > of the absurdities already discussed. Any sound made > by synths, closed or open source are almost always > public domain. However, the patch may be licensed as > you wish.
Interesting point. > The way I see it, either > A) There doesn't need to be a special license. You can > put the patch under any license and it will allow the > user to use the sound as they wish, but puts > restrictions/conditions if he/she wishes to > redistribute the sound. > or The problem with this in my case, is that the normal music distribution format would probably be "modules". That is, compressed archives containing a MIDI file and some scripts. The main reasons are file size (the ten demos + sounds fit in 62 kB, and ~55 kB of that is MIDI files) and not having to decide on rendering quality or compression settings. So, you *would* actually use the patches - not just the resulting audio data. > B) A special license must be drafted to allow this. ...or I just put the patches *and* sounds in the public domain. What do I have to lose...? //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 ---
