license & soundfont

[hollunder at gmx.at]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:56:15 +0100
"Toby Smithe" <tsmithe at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Cory K. <coryisatm at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >  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.
> 
> Look here: [0]
> 
> My first guess was that the only problem would be with Non-Commercial,
> which doesn't give all users equal rights to use the software. Would
> Canonical be using the package commercially, by providing it in a
> distribution with commercial support? The same applies for No
> Derivatives.
> 
> However, it seems that there are many more problems with the
> BY-attribution licence than with NC, owing to ambiguities and drafting
> technicalities, rather than the specific nature of the licence being
> incompatible with the goal of the project.
> 
> So, I would recommend against using the CC licences, even if the NC or
> ND licence was never to be considered, and even if Ubuntu is more
> relaxed on its terms of distribution (for who is really going to start
> legal action on Canonical because of a technicality in a licence
> that's trying to be Free?), because I'm sure at some point this
> package - as opposed to the Ubuntu Studio art - will be distributed by
> Debian, too.
> 
> Now, having written all that (damn!), I've just found these sites:
> [1][2][3]. This informs me that there is now a version 3 of the
> licences, which appears to resolve Debian's issues. It is still not
> clear whether a package under version 3 would be accepted, but I am
> pretty certain that it would, especially considering that
> ubuntustudio-look etc (version 2.5? Not sure what the status of this
> is, either...) provided in Ubuntu.
> 
> Considering this is so tentative, I would nonetheless advise against
> choosing a CC licence, unless someone wants to write debian-legal to
> confirm the status. Choose something more certain!
> 
> I'm keen to hear what the subject of this discussion is: Philipp, are
> you creating a new SoundFont? :D
> 
> Have fun,
> 
> Toby
> 
> [0] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
> [1] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3
> [2]
> http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report
> [3] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/07/05/cc-debian-continued
> 

Ah, thanks a lot, the info I found about incompatibility was about
version 2.0 and I didn't check what was latest.
It's great news.

We will try to sample a Mellotron in a few hours, which should end up
as a soundfont.
The problem we have is that we don't own the Instrument.
One of us would even pay a little to be able to sample the Instrument,
but not much. We'll try to find out what the Instruments owner thinks
about what we are planing to do (release under a 'free' license) and
offer him some options regarding licensing. Having the choice of cc is
a clear benefit there.

Thanks for the help again, I'll tell you guys if we were successful.

-Philipp