[Freepats] Re: GPL for sound samples

[Mark Constable]

On Thursday 13 April 2006 19:53, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> - Compatibility with other licenses. I think mixing different sounds
> should be not limited. It can be very difficult to use only GPL
> compatible sounds on a composition, and it is likely people would
> avoid to use GPL sounds in this case. Does the LGPL will help for
> this?

But this is what the exemption clause should cover... the
final compostion, as a whole, is not automatically covered
by the GPL. I take this to mean that samples, or a soundfont
set, that are covered by our special license could indeed be
mixed with samples from other licenses.

Perhaps I misunderstand that the exemption presumed that
the exempted GPL samples would be the ONLY licensed samples
included in the composition.

I could interpret the exemption to mean that because the
final compostion can be otherwise licensed then that infers
that whatever else is used to make up the compostion does
not then also have to be GPL'd, including any software used,
MIDI and other support files, nor any other samples.

> - The terms given on GPL may not be directly applicable to sounds.
> Compilers, executable, linking, and other terms can be interpreted in
> different ways, and terms like public performance, broadcast or
> interpretation are missing. I would prefer to have a single and clear
> meaning. What can be done? Should we use a clarification notice to
> match the terms of the GPL?

My view is that creating a compostion is a far more complex
process than "simply" compiling an executable from plain text
source code using a compiler such as gcc. However I can see a
number of direct analogies between the two procedures.

The parts that make up a final compostion are mostly binary
but can include text files. For instance, the first remix
"compostion" I created was using 1/2 dozen MIDI files that
I reverse engineered into a textual format using MidiComp[1]
and then used a plain text editor to alter and tweak the MIDI
parameters. I then converted it back to a single binary SMF
MIDI file, then used Timidity[2] to render a wav file, then
converted that to several mp3 variations (before Ogg/Vorbis
was available) using lame[3].

The part of the procedure where I had exercised my artistic
control over the end compostion was when the MIDI files were
in plain text format and I used a plain text editor (pico
actually) to make my changes. I believe this is directly
analogous to altering someone elses C/C++ source code for
my own needs. I then used a "triple stage compilation process"
to convert that editable "MIDI source code" into the final
composition that I actually listened to. The source was first
"compiled" into a binary SMF formatted MIDI file using the
MidiComp "preprocessor", then "compiled" into an intermediate
wav format using Timidity and "compiled" again into the final
composition format for redistribution as an MP3 file by the
lame "post-processor".

The SMF MIDI files were my source code, especially useful
when extracted to plain text format in this case but the
end result would be the same if I used a GUI interface to
interact with the composition in source code format.

MidiComp, Timidity and lame are directly analogous to being
"compilers" by converting some formatted file into another.

This is an extremely simple version of a modern day GUI based
counterpart but I believe the basic workflow has very direct
analogies with compiling sources code from plain text files
into binary executables on a particular platform.

As a microcosm and subset of the above procedure, I would
argue that capturing a real world sound into a digital
sample format and then "compiling" that digital source into
a particular soundfont format, even as a final composition,
also qualifies for a "source code to compiled binary" analogy.

There is also the analogy of versioning and remixs or mashups.
A "song" goes through a multitude of inhouse versions before
reaching a publically releasable state and even then it is
not necessarily "final" if a future artist does a legal cover
version or perhaps an illegal remix. Digital art, and the
components that make up the final compostion, are rarely
ever in a state of finality, just like software, so allowing
for a similar growth path, as the GPL does for software, makes
a lot of sense to me... as one option. I would like to explore
this particular growth path but I can appreciate others do not.

Please shoot me down in flames if this does not make sense.

[1] http://midicomp.opensrc.org/
[2] http://timidity.sourceforge.net/
[3] http://lame.sourceforge.net/

--markc