[fluid-dev] Re: SF2 loader from libInstPatch

[Josh Green]

On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 18:08 +0200, Miguel Lobo wrote:
> 
> At the moment I'd like to have the freedom to modify the loader code,
> so it's either porting it to C++ (no big work, we're talking about
> just a couple of files) or using glib/GObject.  In the future, who
> knows. 
> 

Sounds fine if you are just porting the SoundFont loader.  But then why
not just continue using the FluidSynth one?

> 
>         Yes "vamp off" was probably left over from my initial
>         frustration and it really depends on what you do with the code
>         that 
>         determines whether that has any validity or not.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any use I may decide to make of your
> code would be "vamping off".  Quoting from the comment at the
> beginning of every libInstPatch source file: 
> 
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 
> * modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License 
> * as published by the Free Software Foundation; version 2.1 
> * of the License only. 
> * 
> * This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> [...]
> 
> 
> So if I follow the terms of the LGPL, am I not free (both legally and
> morally) to use the code in any way I deem useful?  Licensing code
> under the LGPL is giving others explicit permission to take that code
> and modify it; otherwise a no-derivatives license would be more
> appropriate. 
> 
> I strongly reject the notion that I might be doing something wrong by
> modifying your code, depending on the use I make of it.
> 

I still wasn't directing this statement to you personally..  But here
are some descriptions of what I think "vamping" would be.

There are restrictions to the LGPL as I'm sure you are well aware
(although it doesn't fit with your statement that you can use it in any
way you deem useful).  For example, you couldn't include it directly in
a commercial app, etc..

I would consider taking the code, including it in an app and not giving
credit, although possibly not against the LGPL, to be somewhat
unfriendly.

Anyways, I wasn't suggesting that you would be doing any of those
things.  I probably shouldn't have even mentioned the word to begin
with, but I hope you at least understand a little of why I might be
upset (although I'm not really anymore).  I imagine the real source of
me being upset, isn't so much about you wanting to use the code, but
more of a long term desire to have more people working on these projects
too, which really has nothing to do with you personally.

> 
>         If you were using a libInstPatch C++ binding though, it would
>         help the
>         development of libInstPatch indirectly (regardless if you had
>         any part
>         to play in the C++ binding).  My frustration comes from the
>         fact that
>         libInstPatch is a library, and is a library so that others can
>         use it.
> 
> And using it I am.  I fail to see why some uses are more correct than
> others. 
> 

Well any particular problems encountered with the use of libInstPatch
itself would benefit the project in general, and it would also lead to
the motivation of creating the C++ binding.

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Miguel


Regards,
        Josh

P.S. I don't really have much else to say on this topic, so it might be
nice to just leave it alone for now.  Or at least continue it off the
list.  If you do have any questions in regards to libInstPatch or the
existing FluidSynth plugin in Swami that is using it, let me know.