freeware musicnotation programm

[vaarky]

Some day, pershaps the Tools spreadsheet will be auto-generated from content in specific fields on the individual Music Notation pages. Are there other types of tools we should add to the Downloadable Tools that are not music notation tools? Perhaps Ghostscript for printing postscript files on printers that don't natively speak postscript? Helpful for .ps files, of which there are some on CPDL.

[Cdalitz]

ChoralWiki:Downloadable tools lists software that may be needed to view the music files available at CPDL, while Category:Music notation programs lists softwares capable of generating these music files.

Ok, I have moved the PMW entry to Music_notation_programs. I wonder whether the file "Downloadable tools" should not focus on specific programs, but on specific file formats. There are for instance many PDF viewers, and I guess that a visitor does not look for "Acrobat Reader", but instead for a program for reading PDF files. The same applies for other formats like MIDI, which BTW misses entirely in this list.

[carlos]

I wonder whether the file "Downloadable tools" should not focus on specific programs, but on specific file formats.

That makes a lot of sense! I totally agree with you, we only need to avoid adding paid softwares to the list. I'll think of a way to display what you suggest in a consistent manner.

[Cdalitz]

We only need to avoid adding paid softwares to the list.

This is a problem that that can hardly be circumvented in a Wiki.

OTOH, CPDL also hosts "Pay per Play" music like http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Ave_ ... ntilini%29, so what is so special about links to commercial software, as long as it is made clear that the software must be paid for?

[choralia]

CPDL also hosts "Pay per Play" music like http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Ave_ ... ntilini%29

You probably refer to the SIAE statement on the score. It does not necessarily imply "Pay per Play" because:

a) SIAE has no rights on sheet music;

b) SIAE has no rights on personal use of music;

c) the author has the rights to exclude SIAE, partially or totally, on tutorship for public performance, broadcasting, etc., of music distributed via internet.

This is quite different with respect to computer programs that require to pay a license, also for personal use.

Max

[vaarky]

So should we remove a program such as MUP which requires payment of $29 (last I checked) for use of the software if you want to print without Demo language on the score in large font?

[Cdalitz]

This is quite different with respect to computer programs that require to pay a license, also for personal use.

I understand that copyright law has different restrictions for software and music, and agree that a sheet of music can be of value even when it may not be used for public performances (e.g. for learning something about a particular compositional style). I found it only odd, that such music is hosted at the Choral Public Domain Library.

What bothers me is that CPDL was built by volunteers who aimed at creating some kind of privately created public domain resource. Over the last year, I have seen the increasing tendency that this resource is (ab)used by some to promote commercially licensed music.

If this is not an abuse of CPDL, but -on the contrary- one of its intended purposes: so be it.

[choralia]

We are now a little bit deviating from the original direction of this thread. Anyway, Christopher, please remember the original CPDL goals set by Raf Ornes, available at http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Help ... is_CPDL.3F. Maybe the use of "Public Domain" in the name is not fully consistent with the goals, as goals are related to "vocal sheet music available for free", being public domain music only a subset of it. This is probably a little bit misleading. I think CPDL should remain consistent with Raf's spirit and goals, not simply to the "public domain" name.

Max

[Cdalitz]

http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Help ... is_CPDL.3F. [...] goals are related to "vocal sheet music available for free"

Obviously, we use different definitions of the term "free". The text at the link above says "As well as scores, you can use CPDL to find texts and lyrics, translations, and information about composers - all available for use under a license such as the CPDL license." The essential part of the latter says "The CPDL License is designed to make sure [...] that you can freely perform or record the edition". I do not directly see how this is reconcilable with SIAE's licensing policies.

I am fully aware however, that "free" is used by different persons in a very different meaning, so in some way, we both have a point.

Concerning the question about MUP, a criterium could be whether the software is needed for files posted on CPDL.

[carlos]

It seems I opened a can of worms when I said about avoiding paid software!

What I had in mind with that comment was simply that the softwares on that page are supposed to be just viewers to open score files contributed to CPDL. Since they are just viewers, I feel like it wouldn't make sense to have to pay for them. Of course, in the other list of Music Notation Softwares we can't avoid citing the commercial products too.

About SIAE, I follow this reasoning: In the same manner that there are at CPDL works that are in the Public Domain in the U.S. but not in Europe, there could also be works that require a fee if executed in Italy (or in E.U.?), but not if executed in Brazil, for instance, where I assume SIAE has no jurisdiction.

[vaarky]

Carlos wrote:

What I had in mind with that comment was simply that the softwares on that page are supposed to be just viewers to open score files contributed to CPDL. Since they are just viewers, I feel like it wouldn't make sense to have to pay for them. Of course, in the other list of Music Notation Softwares we can't avoid citing the commercial products too.

Excellent point about the Music Notation Software being a proper place to include for-pay products too, and we can keep that page for free viewers. It should link to the Music Notation Software, however, perhaps with a blurb such as "For more sophisticated and/or commercial products that can view scores and perform various other functions, please see (link)."

I'll remove MUP and add this verbiage (feel free to edit).

[vaarky]

Oops, but then the page name, Downloadable Tools should be renamed if the point is for it to be limited to free viewers. Opinions? Holding off on making proposed changes pending feedback.