On Thursday 10 March 2005 03:46 pm, John Check wrote: > On Thursday 10 March 2005 09:44 am, james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > 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. > > Anytime one has the authors email handy, that's a good idea. > > > > 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 ? > > In light of the above, it's the actual "rendition" of the standard as > recorded in that specific document that's at question. Like a copyright on > a recording, as opposed to the copyright on the tune itself. > > > > 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... > > Since it's publicly available, that fulfills the need. > > One could also make the interpretation that circulating it within the > development community constitutes "internal". > However, Mark's original email didn't supply sufficient background > WRT to the standards origin. Is there sufficient legal structure behind it? > IOW is it from a corporate structure with resources to make trouble? In the tradition of replying to my own questions: whois soundfont.comRegistrant: CREATIVE LABS, INC. (SOUNDFONT-DOM) 1901 MCCARTHY BLVD MILPITAS, CA 95035-7427 US Domain Name: SOUNDFONT.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Marketing, Internet (YTEYTUZMFI) domainregadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Creative Labs, Inc. 1901 McCarthy Blvd Milpitas, CA 95035-7427 US 408-428-6600 DOH!
