[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:15:03 +0100 > "Toby Smithe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 18:57:49 +0100 >>> "Toby Smithe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > > What license must a soundfont be under to make it possible for >>> > > you to integrate it? >>> > >>> > Any free distribution licence is fine. For instance, I >>> > recommended the Fluid SoundFont be MIT licensed, mainly because >>> > it was closest to what the upstream had envisaged as "Public >>> > Domain, but please include a copyright notice". >>> > >>> GPL would probably also be an option. >>> It's inconvenient that the cc licenses are not approved by debian, >>> the possibility to choose some terms would have been nice. >>> I guess a cc licensed soundfont couldn't get included? >>> >> GPL is certainly an option. I only suggested MIT as that's the one >> that has been used before :-) >> >> I'm not sure about the status of CC licences; I'm sure they're free >> enough to be included, though how Debian's stance is and affects us is >> unclear. If you're really keen, you could e-mail debian-legal and ask. >> >> > > Thanks Toby, > it would be nice to use a license that complies to debian, because if > it's ok for them, it's probably ok for everyone else. > I just don't know if we can use such a license. > > I won't contact debian-legal, I just don't like that kind of stuff.. > > Thanks for advice, > Philipp >
This is one place where there is sometimes a difference in Debian/Ubuntu. I've seen quite a bit of CC items go into Ubuntu. All the Ubuntu Studio art for one. Tango I believe is another case. I think it depends on the specific CC license. -Cory \m/ -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
