[Freepats] Pipe organ example

[Mark Constable]

On Saturday 12 August 2006 20:32, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote:
> OK, I've made this files:

Well done Roberto!

> - 96KHz, 32 bit floating point
>   File size: 448M (wav), flac does not support 32 bit samples

I'm not sure if the above has any sonic merit over the 24bit
version. Would anything take advantage of 32bit floating point ?

Is it perhaps an Ardour or other audio mixer native format ?

> - 96KHz, 24 bit
>   File size: 336M (wav), 107M (flac)
> 
> - 96KHz, 16 bit
>   File size: 224M (wav), 49M (flac)
> 
> At 16 bit flac compresses proportionally better (2/3 wav -- 1/2 flac).
> I will upload the 96KHz, 24 bit flac file, unless anybody wants other.
> 
> What should I do with the license? File consists of just isolated
> notes, played one by one, rendered by a software synth. Normally, I
> would not want to put my copyright on this kind of "creative" work.
> But by the magic of copyright law, it is auto-copyrighted even if I do
> not mind.
> 
> It is funny, because if someone runs Aeolus and record the same notes,
> he will make exactly the same file. The same file, made by two
> different persons on different locations, with possibly two different
> and maybe incompatible licenses. Wow.

Yes, a good point. Two people writting the "same" book or painting
the "same" picture could not produce exactly the same result.

Your effort and methodology choices could be "copyrighted" (even
patented as an extreme example) but there is no option to copyright
that part of the procedure, just the end result, which as you point
out, could be achieved via multiple paths. Wow indeed.

> We have two choices, and I have no clear preference for them. I don't
> want to start thinking too much about licensing issues again (to
> preserve my neurons, I still use them sometimes), so I will accept
> most voted option:

I agree and am disillusioned by the whole license issue so my "vote"
is nearly useless.

> - Copyright it and use a free license. Or better, let the user choose
> between multiple free licenses.

A single MIT license is probably the easiest option.

> - Use a notice to clearly reject all copyright and put the file under
> public domain.

I'd lean towards this if you are feeling rebellious and politically
incorrect on the day (as I tend to these days).

--markc