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)Received on Thu Mar 10 20:15:03 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 20:15:06 EET