[PD] [ANN] "Symmetries" premiere recording now available (and other goodies)

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Sun May 1 19:58:59 CEST 2005

On Apr 30, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote:

> Le 29 Avril 2005 23:43, Ivica Ico Bukvic a écrit :
>> I would just like to share the quick-and-dirty downmix of the  
>> premiere of
>> my latest work "Symmetries" (that took place at the last-week's "Linux
>> Audio Conference" in Karlsruhe, Germany) with the LAU/LAD as well as  
>> Pd
>> community. Without you guys, this piece would never have been possible
>> :-).
> Thanks a lot for sharing this mix with those of us who can't afford
> travelling that far. It is a beautiful piece, with a meaningful dialog
> between the violon and the computer part, (also beautiful alone).
>> As my token of gratitude, in conjunction with this release I am also
>> releasing the soundfont that I've built from scratch using exclusively
>> Linux software (Swami, Rezound) and specifically for use in this  
>> piece.
>> For more info on each of these please see notes below.
> Great! There's not many violon soundfonts available, and this is a  
> nice one.
> Rezound is perfect to create loops; navigation within the sound is very
> effective.
>> The soundfont is released under the "GPL/Artistic 2.0" license (for  
>> more
>> info please see: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/346.html). Btw, I chose
>> the art-related license simply based on my limited understanding that  
>> it
>> is more appropriately tailored towards something that is not  
>> code-based.
>> That being said, if anyone can explain me the difference between the  
>> two
>> licenses, I would really appreciate it :-).
> This combination of licenses is for software (Perl in this case),   
> Although
> it is called "Artistic", it was not designed to help distributing  
> content.
> I would suggest to use a Creative Commons license.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3716218.stm
> http://creativecommons.org/
> Maybe the new sampling license is appropriate for soundfonts?
> http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling
> --
> Marc

There is nothing wrong with distributing media, or anything for that  
matter, under the GNU GPL.  If it has the terms that you desire, then  
you should use it.  It is much better than almost all of the CC  
licenses for something like a soundfont, I believe.

For example, if you include the Attribution clause, then if someone  
wanted to include CC soundfonts in their app, they would have to  
attribute every one of the soundfont authors whenever that app is  
mentioned.  Then if a Linux distro wanted to distribute those  
soundfonts, they would also have to mention each author every time that  
distro is mentioned.  Then we are back to the old BSD license problem.   
The UC Berkeley ditched the attribution clause for this very reason.

CC licenses are good for final products (pieces of music, movies,  
etc.), but attribution clauses can cause big problems with tools.  The  
CC sampling licenses would be even worse in this regard.  Neither could  
be included in Debian.



Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.
								-David Zicarelli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2353 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20050501/994e0b18/attachment.bin>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list