Andrew Sidwell wrote: > I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. That last paragraph was meant to > indicate WAV files which were derived from MIDI files via use of > non-free soundfonts, not the original MIDI file itself.
The DFSG would require that the soundfont license be "DFSG free" in order for the WAV to be considered DFSG free, IMHO. The issue of whether the fonts can be combined with the GPL MIDI is trickier. Conservatively, I would say that this requires the soundfont license to be GPL-compatible. This is based on the idea that the MIDI+soundfonts WAV is a "derivative work" of both the MIDI and the soundfonts and not merely a "use" of the MIDI. However, if the license on the soundfonts is DFSG free so that the resulting two entities: MIDI and soundfonts can be distributed under DFSG free terms independently, then you might want to simply ask the MIDI creator to add an exemption, just like the one GPL graphic fonts usually use to allow PS or PDF documents that embed the font without having to GPL the documents' contents. In fact you could probably lift the boilerplate for that from one of the graphic fonts already in Debian. It probably was not their intent to restrict rendering of their MIDI. IMHO, the license of the sequencing software you used is completely irrelevant. You USE a toolchain when you create with it, you don't DERIVE from it (the exception being things like libraries -- or soundfonts -- that get incorporated into the resulting work). So, the soundfont license needs to be very permissive, but I don't think there should be any concern about the tool used to create it. Of course, the sourcecode requirement would probably insist that both the MIDI and the soundfonts are provided as source for the WAV. HTH, IANAL, TINLA, etc. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
