Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)

Hi Edmund, On Dienstag 03 Juni 2003 19:12, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a > > > high-precision digital recording (with lots of random > > > noise in the low bits) and D is a compressed version:

Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)

Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You have a similar but less severe problem if A is a > > high-precision digital recording (with lots of random noise in > > the low bits) and D is a compressed version: clearly A is > > source of D, > > I would argue that D is an excerpt of A. If

Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:56, Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller wrote: > Somewhere on this planet, bandwith must be really cheap... 21715 Filigree Court, VA is one such place. Now if only power and space there were really cheap :-( signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)

Hi Edmund, On Dienstag 13 Mai 2003 11:54, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > So the problem here is that the source code of sample data > > is more sample data. These samples might again require their > > sources, and so the resulting tree could be enor

Re: Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)

Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > So the problem here is that the source code of sample data is > more sample data. These samples might again require their > sources, and so the resulting tree could be enormous. When distributing the source, you don't have to distribute the whole

Source Code of Music (was: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL)

Hi folks, On Mittwoch 07 Mai 2003 18:58, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote: > > you should be able to do a > > text representation of a FFT or something, I would've > > thought. Long, and ugly, but editable as text, > > That's no better than a he

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > All the XML scores in the world will not allow me to > > > recreate a particular sound recording (made with real live musicians, > > > in the case it contains music). Therefore, an XML score is not > > > source. > > All the C co

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

I'm going to try again... I think somehow, we got off on a tangent of sheet music which blurs the issue. Ignoring my previous message about not being able to have sound be a transparent copy at all: I hope we can agree that: 1) Transparent copies of a document are required for distribu

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

Just noticed another problem: A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format ... that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. ... A copy tha

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 03:36, Anthony Towns wrote: > > We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound > > recordings*. > > Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document. > Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form sound takes. That's right. You seem to

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > OTOH, I don't think there are any "revisions" you can make to any > > sound file that you can't also make with a text editor to a suitable > > text dump of a WAV file. > > My point is exactly that *no* way of editing sound files

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns > On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound > > recordings*.=20 > Actually, we're just talking about embedding sound in a GNU FDL document. > Music, in case you hadn't noticed, is one form

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:24:21AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Please respect Debian list policy and my Mail-Followup-To header, and don't Cc me. > > An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of > > representing music. > We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound > r

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

Scripsit Anthony Towns > An XML score satisfies all these requirements as a way of > representing music. We're not talking about music; we're talking about *sound recordings*. All the XML scores in the world will not allow me to recreate a particular sound recording (made with real live musician

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 12:58:20PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote: > >you should be able to do a > >text representation of a FFT or something, I would've thought. Long, > >and ugly, but editable as text, > That's no better than a hex dum

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Towns wrote: you should be able to do a text representation of a FFT or something, I would've thought. Long, and ugly, but editable as text, That's no better than a hex dump of the PCM data. It's not any more editable in a text editor (possibly, q

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 03:51:06PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200, > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 33 lines which said: > > > ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of > > the "invariant" or "cover

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 11:08:39PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > I don't think it could be > > > considered straitforward to revise that with a text editor. > > - C# > > + D > Yes, now, where is the source to this trumpet timbre? You may

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 16:48, Anthony Towns wrote: > > No, you wouldn't. There seem to me to be plenty of ways to have an XML > format for music that would be plausibly editable. Think scores and things. Works great for some types of music, but other types is routinely put through a lot of filters

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:06:17PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > > What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, > > > > anyway? > [...] Forcing

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 02:43, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway? > > > > [...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML > > I'd assume: "A 'Transparent' copy of the Docu

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:19:24PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > What's stopping you from doing all your music in some XML format, anyway? > > > [...] Forcing you to convert mp3s to XML > I'd assume: "A 'Transparent' copy of the Document [is] suitable for > revising the document straightfor

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 22:15, Joey Hess wrote: > I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a > document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in > base64 encoding. OK, I'll dig it up... RFC2397: > I'm not sure what b

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 09:52, Anthony Towns wrote: > I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part > of a text document? It'd no longer be a plain-text document. To take a random example, you could create a HyperCard stack (ignoring that HyperCard isn't free, for a momen

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

Anthony Towns wrote: > I can't see how that's even meaningful. How do you make a soundfile part > of a text document? I was amused the other day to find abiword, when I asked it to save a document as html, offering to inline the images in the document in base64 encoding. I'm not sure what browser

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:53:14PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > The definition of a Transparent copy is so implementation-specific > that a sound file can never be part of a GFDLed document. I think > this is a significant restriction on modification. I can't see how that's even meaningful. H

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 06:26:07PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any > > Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed > > in "main"? > > I believe so. There

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200, > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 33 lines which said: > > > ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of > > the "invariant" or "cover" options are exerci

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

Scripsit Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of > > the "invariant" or "cover" options are exercised. > Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any > Invaria

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *without* any > Invariant or Cover is indeed free and has no problem being distributed > in "main"? I believe this is pretty well agreed. However, realize that if you release a work under the GF

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:15:32AM +0200, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > ?) The GFDL is not free when applied to documents if any of > the "invariant" or "cover" options are exercised. Is it a consensus on debian-legal that a GFDL work *wi

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: >On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote: >> Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the >> following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of >> opinion which stands on it's own rather than re

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

Scripsit Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the > following categories? I think my opinion fits "well enough" within category c: > c) The GFDL would not be free if applied to software, and is not free when > applied to documents.

Re: various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

On 20030429T133608-0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > Does anyone feel that their opinion does not roughly fall into one of the > following categories? If so, it would be nice to get a short statment of > opinion which stands on it's own rather than rebutting someone else's > statement. You are completely

various opinions on Debian vs the GFDL

We're still clearly a ways from consensus on the topic of Debian's position on GFDL documents which contain invariant sections. We've gotten a good first volley of statments from folks, and this is an attempt to shoehorn the majority of opinions into a smaller number of statments than the numb