[Freepats] Re: GPL for sound samples

[Mark Constable]

On Friday 14 April 2006 14:18, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     Freepats people is studing how to release the next sound samples 
>     packages versions in their collection. So they evaluated the 
>     possibility about using a "Public Domain" licence by default. But now 
>     they are convinced that GPL will be fitting his goals.
> 
> That is good news.

To clarify, 2 years ago, in haste, we came up with this license at
the bottom of this page...

 http://alsa.opensrc.org/FreePats

Because of the difficult nature of dealing with licenses for samples,
soundfont sets and ultimately completed or evolving compositions, we
have always considered a Public Domain license as an option if we
cannot find, create or come to a consensus on a "real" license.

>     No, as far as I know it's not a GNU package, I will CC the people of 
>     freepats so you can talk :-)
> 
> Would they like to make it a GNU package?

Speaking for myself, yes. As far as I know this is just about the
extent of known GPL'd samples and soundfonts publically available.

 http://freepats.opensrc.org/musix/ (by Milton Paredes)
 http://freepats.opensrc.org/freepats/ (accumulated by Eric Welsh)

I can only hope there are more out there somewhere.

>     I think they are a little confused about the GPL copyrigth notice: I 
>     think they believe that, as the GPL was created by FSF, they should put 
>     this notice "Copyright (C) 2004-2006 Free Software Foundation" in 
>     theirs sound samples packages:
> 
> No, that is a confusion.  The copyright notice should give the name of
> the real copyright holder, which would normally be the author.

In the case of a multi-sample soundfont set, this could include
dozens, or more, of individual authors... from a previous message...

 The issue here is that there will be multiple contributors to
 an instrument patch set, most likely a sf2 format soundfount,
 and one way to deal with that in, the context of the GPL, is for
 all contributors to assign to a single "neutral owner" of which
 the FSF is the most obvious entity.

 Thank you for the links Roberto. Aside from the awkwardness of
 having multiple copyright owners for the soundfont patch set,
 this outlines a practical reason for doing so.

   only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of
   the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple
   authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends
   on having the cooperation of all authors.

   From: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html

 This only applies to a single "set of instrument patches" which
 includes multiple samples by a number of people. The FSF may or
 may not want to have their name legally associated with the
 license and our potential exemption.

> If they sign a copyright assignment, transferring the copyright to the FSF,
> then they should put "Free Software Foundation" in the copyright notice.

A question: would the FSF accept our, so far still evolving, exemption
clause ?

<SoapBox>

Elsewhere I stated that there could and will be any number of samples
and soundfont sets under all manner of licenses (see http://ccmixter.org
as one example of a hodge-podge of Creative Commons licenses) but I
would like to see at least one single, complete and good quality GM/GS
compatible "sf2" format soundfont available to the world under a strict
GPL license. This would allow it to be re-distributed with just about
any GNU/Linux based distribution as the default instrument set for any
included MIDI sound system. Such a component does not currently exist
and the sad medicore state of the current "freepats" GUS-pat compatible
sounds is one of the few instrument sets that, for instance, the
Debian folks can officially offer.

An "official" high quality GPL'd sf2 soundfont could become the default
instrument set for most, or nearly all, GNU/Linux desktop distributions
which could mean millions of installations over the next few years. If
so then the nature of the GPL that "forces" updates and improvements out
into the public, and particularly back towards the this potential default
instrument set, would ensure it's growth, improvement and longevity.

To me, this is a vitally important issue, and has been for a decade now,
which I am prepared to put time, effort and funds into solving.

</SoapBox>

FWIW Richard, this thread starts here so if you Reply-All, if you care
to, then the thread should remain intact...

 http://opensrc.org/pipermail/freepats/2006-April/000014.html

--markc