license & soundfont

[Cory K.]

hollunder at gmx.at wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:15:03 +0100
> "Toby Smithe" <tsmithe at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:41 PM,  <hollunder at gmx.at> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 18:57:49 +0100
>>>  "Toby Smithe" <tsmithe at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:30 PM,  <hollunder at gmx.at> 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/