On Apr 30, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 29 Avril 2005 23:43, Ivica Ico Bukvic a écrit :
I would just like to share the quick-and-dirty downmix of the
premiere of my latest work "Symmetries" (that took place at the last-week's "Linux Audio Conference" in Karlsruhe, Germany) with the LAU/LAD as well as
Pd community. Without you guys, this piece would never have been possible :-).Thanks a lot for sharing this mix with those of us who can't afford travelling that far. It is a beautiful piece, with a meaningful dialog between the violon and the computer part, (also beautiful alone).
As my token of gratitude, in conjunction with this release I am also releasing the soundfont that I've built from scratch using exclusively Linux software (Swami, Rezound) and specifically for use in this
piece. For more info on each of these please see notes below.Great! There's not many violon soundfonts available, and this is a
nice one. Rezound is perfect to create loops; navigation within the sound is very effective.The soundfont is released under the "GPL/Artistic 2.0" license (for
more info please see: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/346.html). Btw, I chose the art-related license simply based on my limited understanding that
it is more appropriately tailored towards something that is not
code-based. That being said, if anyone can explain me the difference between the
two licenses, I would really appreciate it :-).This combination of licenses is for software (Perl in this case),
Although it is called "Artistic", it was not designed to help distributing
content. I would suggest to use a Creative Commons license. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3716218.stm http://creativecommons.org/ Maybe the new sampling license is appropriate for soundfonts? http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling -- Marc
There is nothing wrong with distributing media, or anything for that
matter, under the GNU GPL. If it has the terms that you desire, then
you should use it. It is much better than almost all of the CC
licenses for something like a soundfont, I believe.
For example, if you include the Attribution clause, then if someone
wanted to include CC soundfonts in their app, they would have to
attribute every one of the soundfont authors whenever that app is
mentioned. Then if a Linux distro wanted to distribute those
soundfonts, they would also have to mention each author every time that
distro is mentioned. Then we are back to the old BSD license problem.
The UC Berkeley ditched the attribution clause for this very reason.
CC licenses are good for final products (pieces of music, movies,
etc.), but attribution clauses can cause big problems with tools. The
CC sampling licenses would be even worse in this regard. Neither could
be included in Debian.
.hc
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. -David Zicarelli