On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
All the XML scores in the world will not allow me to
recreate a particular sound recording (made with real live musicians,
in the case it contains music). Therefore, an XML score is not
source.
All the C code in the
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of
representing music.
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*. All the XML scores in the world will not allow me to
recreate a particular sound recording (made
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Please respect Debian list policy and my Mail-Followup-To header, and
don't Cc me.
An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of
representing music.
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*.=20
Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
Music, in case you hadn't
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
OTOH, I don't think there are any revisions you can make to any
sound file that you can't also make with a text editor to a suitable
text dump of a WAV file.
My point is exactly that *no* way of editing sound files will
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 03:36, Anthony Towns wrote:
We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound
recordings*.
Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document.
Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form sound takes.
That's right. You seem to keep
Just noticed another problem:
A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable
copy, represented in a format ... that is suitable for input
to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety
of formats suitable for input to text formatters. ... A copy
that
I'm going to try again... I think somehow, we got off on a tangent of
sheet music which blurs the issue. Ignoring my previous message about
not being able to have sound be a transparent copy at all:
I hope we can agree that:
1) Transparent copies of a document are required for
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 03:51:06PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
the invariant or cover options are
On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
you should be able to do a
text representation of a FFT or something, I would've thought. Long,
and ugly, but editable as text,
That's no better than a hex dump of the PCM data. It's not any more
editable in a text editor (possibly,
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:08:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
I don't think it could be
considered straitforward to revise that with a text editor.
- note timbre=trumpetC#/note
+ note timbre=trumpetD/note
Yes, now, where is the
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote:
No, you wouldn't. There seem to me to be plenty of ways to have an XML
format for music that would be plausibly editable. Think scores and things.
Works great for some types of music, but other types is routinely put
through a lot of filters,
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway?
[...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
I'd assume: A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is] suitable for
revising the document straightforwardly
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway?
[...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML
I'd assume: A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is]
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:06:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format,
anyway? [...] Forcing you to
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any
Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed
in main?
I believe so. There is some
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:53:14PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
The definition of a Transparent copy is so implementation-specific
that a sound file can never be part of a GFDLed document. I think
this is a significant restriction on modification.
I can't see how that's even meaningful. How
Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part
of a text document?
I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a
document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in
base64 encoding. I'm not sure what browser
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part
of a text document?
It'd no longer be a plain-text document. To take a random example, you
could create a HyperCard stack (ignoring that HyperCard isn't free, for
a moment
On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 22:15, Joey Hess wrote:
I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a
document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in
base64 encoding.
OK, I'll dig it up... RFC2397: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2397.txt
I'm not sure what
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
the invariant or cover options are exercised.
Is
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200,
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
the invariant or cover options are exercised.
Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without*
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any
Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed
in main?
I believe this is pretty well agreed.
However, realize that if you release a work under the GFDL,
Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of
the invariant or cover options are exercised.
Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any
Invariant or Cover is
On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of
opinion which stands on it's own rather than rebutting someone else's
statement.
You are completely
Scripsit Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories?
I think my opinion fits well enough within category c:
c) The GFDL would not be free if applied to software, and is not free when
applied to documents. There
On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the
following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of
opinion which stands on it's own rather than
27 matches
Mail list logo
