On Thu, 10 Mar, 2005 at 11:26PM +1000, Mark Constable spake thus: > Would anyone care to comment as to whether this means it's > okay to redistribute this document, or not ? > > "INTERNAL USE ONLY" could be a showstopper. > > A LICENSE IS HEREBY GRANTED TO COPY, REPRODUCE, AND DISTRIBUTE > THIS SPECIFICATION FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY. NO OTHER LICENSE > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, TO ANY OTHER > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IS GRANTED OR INTENDED HEREBY. Lets hope you don't get into trouble for passing this excerpt around the net... :) But seriously, we could just ask them. I get a feeling they won't mind. > And, regardless of the status of (re)distributing the > document itself, has anyone got a feel for the openness, or > not, of the specification outlined within this document ? >From the FAQ: Is the SoundFont 2.0 format public? Yes. E-MU / ENSONIQ and Creative Technology are actively promoting SoundFont 2.0 as an open standard. We have worked diligently on getting complete, unambiguous documentation and a suite of tools available for developers who might want to use the SoundFont 2.0 format. > Is it ultimately a waste of time to use this sf2 standard > in conjunction with perpetual open source projects ? > > If it is not open enough to take advantage of then is there > any truly open soundfont-like standard anywhere on the planet? > > The rest of it is here... > > http://www.soundfont.com/documents/sfspec21.pdf We could always just pass the link around... > -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
