Re: More Soundtrack

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@gmx.net>]

On 08.03.2004 04:39, Dave Fancella wrote:
> All,
> 
> This is it, for now.  On my music page, you'll find an ogg-encoded version of 
> the song.
> 
> http://www.davefancella.com/index.php?page=Music
> 
> You can also download the midi file and try that, it's much smaller (88k).
> 
> http://www.davefancella.com/Music/default.mid
> 
> I found an appropriate license for it.  :)  This song is provided under the 
> Open Source License v2, the complete text of which should be embedded in the 
> midi file and can also be found here:
> 
> http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.0.php
> 
> I assume it's GPL compatible.  If it's not, I'll find one that is.  ;)

Er, you don't have to embed the license text in every midi file, do you? I
mean, it's no problem as long as we only have few tracks but assuming we
can increase the number over time... You don't include the GPL in each
source file, either.

As for GPL compatibility, somewhere on the GNU site should be a list of
compatible licenses. I'll dig for it.

> So, the question is, I should provide the source for the song.  The midi is 
> the source, except that I used RoseGarden, and it's file format is the source 
> I edit.  So am I supposed to provide the .rg file, or is the .mid file 
> enough?  I don't mind either way, but it could affect the core distribution 
> if we have to include the rosegarden files.  I'll send the OSI an email 
> asking about it.

If the license is GPL compatible, we don't need to include the source
in the distribution at all. We just have to make it available to interested
parties, so we could have a separate download for example. In this case
I'd say the midi files _are_ the source, though. You see, I might have
a source template containing the GPL header and some basic definitions
I can use to create new C++ files. Those wouldn't qualify as source, I
think. IANAL, though, so everything's possible.

Jens