Conversions

Discussions relating to performance, interpretation, score preparation, musica ficta etc.
Gacb
Posts: 2
Joined: 20 May 2009 19:53

Conversions

Postby Gacb » 13 Mar 2012 21:25

Contributors that are using software capable of converting proprietary formats into MusicXML are strongly encouraged to do so.

CHGiffen
Site Admin
Posts: 1678
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 21:22
Location: Hudson, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Conversions

Postby CHGiffen » 14 Mar 2012 01:05

Ummmm, why? That would presume (I suppose) that the contributor actually wishes to make the source code of her/his work available to the public in some form (not all of us do, at least if the recent withdrawal or lack of inclusion of source code is any indication).

Moreover, there is the additional question of the generally much larger size of the MusicXML code, not to mention the way in which particular programs such as Sibelius, Finale, etc. implement synthesized sound from a score and how such soundscapes can be manipulated and tweaked for desired output.

Nevertheless, there are situations for which creating a MusicXML file can be of use. For example, since Finale editions are not backwards compatible, a user who wishes to make, say a Finale 2011 score available to a friend with Finale 2008 can save the Finale 2011 file as a MusicXML file which can then be imported to Finale 2008. Some further editing in the Finale 2008 program may be required, however, to make it approximately the same as the original Finale 2011 score (with most of the bells and whistles).

Frankly, for my own compositions, I no longer wish to circulate the source code in any format, nor do I create and circulate MIDI files for these scores (I opt for MP3 synthesis, because I view sound files as being a listening courtesy to people who might wish to perform my work and not an aid to ripping off my work). Others, of course, may have different standards and personal policies with respect to their compositions and editions of public domain music published at CPDL.
Charles H. Giffen
President of CPDL and
Manager of ChoralWiki
User pageTalk pageComposer page

Early Choral Music? Zephyrus (I sang 12 seasons 1992-2004 with this group).

carlos
Site Admin
Posts: 1797
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 15:26
Location: São Paulo, Brasil

Re: Conversions

Postby carlos » 14 Mar 2012 17:55

Charles, you already said that, but it's never too much to emphasize that the above is your personal opinion as a composer and editor, and that you're not speaking as the President of CPDL or Manager of ChoraWiki, which might mislead people into thinking that CPDL's primary goals have changed. :wink:

CHGiffen wrote:That would presume that the contributor actually wishes to make the source code of her/his work available to the public in some form

Although I understand and respect the reasons of those who don't make their source codes available, it's a common viewpoint that freely sharing to the community is the main objective of any wiki- and free software-based project as is CPDL. Gabc's comment should be understood in this context.

CHGiffen wrote:Moreover, there is the additional question of the generally much larger size of the MusicXML code

Fortunately this can be easily circumvented by compressing the MusicXML file with any compression utility such as zip, rar, tar.gz etc. :)

Cheers,
Carlos (talk)
CPDL Administration

anaigeon
Posts: 102
Joined: 06 Dec 2005 21:15
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Conversions

Postby anaigeon » 14 Mar 2012 19:59

carlos wrote:Charles, you already said that, but it's never too much to emphasize that the above is your personal opinion as a composer and editor, and that you're not speaking as the President of CPDL or Manager of ChoraWiki, which might mislead people into thinking that CPDL's primary goals have changed. :wink:

CHGiffen wrote:That would presume that the contributor actually wishes to make the source code of her/his work available to the public in some form

Although I understand and respect the reasons of those who don't make their source codes available, it's a common viewpoint that freely sharing to the community is the main objective of any wiki- and free software-based project as is CPDL. Gabc's comment should be understood in this context.
Cheers,

Ok, nevertheless I think that "strongly encouraged" might have been understood as a general request made by cpdl.
I personnaly understand GHGiffen's point of view ; one thing is to make a score freely available, another one is to allow it to be modified without any control by its first creator.
I think anyone should be responsible and credited for what he has done, this beeing true for the first version as well as for the modifications (that's why I personnaly don't like the "wiki" principle, which should *not* be identified with free availability).

CHGiffen
Site Admin
Posts: 1678
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 21:22
Location: Hudson, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Conversions

Postby CHGiffen » 15 Mar 2012 04:22

Carlos, of course I was speaking as an editor and composer, not as an official of CPDL.

Anaigeon pretty much reiterated my main point, namely, that there is a difference between making a score freely available and making available the source code that produced the edition of that score. Some editors/composers wish to exercise some measure of control over future modifications of their work.

Moreover, (at least as far as I know) it has never been CPDL policy to encourage strongly anything more than the contribution of free scores, with the contribution of sound files and source code files appreciated but neither a requisite nor even an expressly encouraged component of an editor's score contribution. I've never seen any evidence that CPDL subscribes proactively to "a common viewpoint that freely sharing to the community is the main objective of any wiki- and free software-based project." The reason that CPDL was ported to ChoralWiki was to make the posting of scores a shared activity, thereby easing the burden of posting by one (or a few) managers, together with the realization that, by using a wiki format, contributions in the form of texts, translations, descriptions of works, catalogues and lists could be made available, in the style of a true "library."

Furthermore, I was (personally) questioning why contributors should be "strongly encouraged" to convert their scores to MusicXML format, for the simple reason that I don't understand why Gbac might wish for CPDL to adopt such a policy of encouragement. In part, this is because (personally) I don't wish to encourage this, nor would I wish (personally) for CPDL to adopt such a policy of encouragement. Also, in part, this would be a position that CPDL admins would have to consider before taking any such action (if any).

Finally, let me say that my own attitude towards this issue of whether to post source code changed (from posting my own source code to not posting my own source code) at some time after I was persuaded by the arguments and actions of other CPDL editors who had ceased posting their source code. I do not wish for my actions and opinions with respect to posting source code either to discourage or to encourage others from posting source code, and I apologize if anyone thought I might be trying to enunciate CPDL policy in this regard.

What I would encourage is that people make their own feelings known about this issue. For indeed you may have a completely different opinion.
Charles H. Giffen
President of CPDL and
Manager of ChoralWiki
User pageTalk pageComposer page

Early Choral Music? Zephyrus (I sang 12 seasons 1992-2004 with this group).

carlos
Site Admin
Posts: 1797
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 15:26
Location: São Paulo, Brasil

Re: Conversions

Postby carlos » 15 Mar 2012 07:53

You both raised some interesting points. Perhaps the CPDL's documentation can shed some light on these matters:

anaigeon wrote:I personally understand GHGiffen's point of view ; one thing is to make a score freely available, another one is to allow it to be modified without any control by its first creator.

The text below, taken from the Copyright Issues FAQ, pretty much covers this subject.

Q. What are the advantages of using a license such as the CPDL Copyright License?
R. People have wondered, "If music can be copied, distributed, performed, and recorded, why copyright it at all?" One reason is to guarantee that it will remain freely available. If the music notation file (source code) is given away, it is very easy for someone to remove the copyright notice and claim the edition as his/her own. The terms of the CPDL license make this illegal and will hopefully help keep editions free.

From the above it's quite clear (to me, at least) that one of the primary concerns of Rafael Ornes (creator and first manager of CPDL) when he conceived the CPDL license was exactly to protect the source code.
Another question taken from the same page:

Q. What is a "CPDL copyright"?
R. The CPDL Copyright is a type of open-source license which allows the end user to use a score freely. The only restriction is that if any changes are made, the subsequent version still falls under the CPDL copyright. The license is based on the GNU GPL License that is very common in software development.

In this reply, "score" was probably being used as a synonym for "source code" by Rafael Ornes: that would explain the reference to "subsequent version" and his choice for the GNU General Public License, that is (in his words) "very common in software development", instead of choosing other options at the time as, say, the GNU Free Documentation License.

So if, for one side, the contribution of notation files was not mandatory (as Charles well remembered), on the other side it was important enough for Raf Ornes to come up with a new license in order to protect the rights of those who might want to contribute their own source codes.

CHGiffen wrote:What I would encourage is that people make their own feelings known about this issue. For indeed you may have a completely different opinion.

Thank you! IMHO we all gain from this exchange, even if conclusions are subjective. :D

vaarky
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 07:28

Re: Conversions

Postby vaarky » 17 Mar 2012 03:22

This is interesting discussion indeed.

Speaking personally as a voracious consumer of sheet music:
I really appreciate when contributors make the source files available because it makes it easy to transpose keys, fix the occasional error, etc. However, it's more important to me that singable scores overall be maximized, even in unmodifiable form.

CPDL's practice is to provide a framework that makes it easy to include source files should a contributor wish to add those. My personal feeling is that, unless there are strong feelings otherwise, then at this time CPDL doesn't need to address the question of whether to formally "encourage" contribution of source files. However, given composer/editor concerns about modifiable forms making it easy for bad actors to strip copyright notices, perhaps CPDL should offer contributors a middle ground: the ability to upload source files for archival but not for publication.

That way, it serves the same archival purpose CPDL has served for the estates of some contributors and the great collections they had given CPDL. And the composer/contributing editor could grant CPDL a revocable license to modify the source files to update errors or possibly even do courtesy transpositions (to the extent resources permit and Copyright counsel doesn't advise otherwise) in the event the contributor is not reachable after some lengthy period of time (e.g. a month), with CPDL distributing only the modified PDF but not the source file.

Just brainstorming a bit. Thoughts?

carlos
Site Admin
Posts: 1797
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 15:26
Location: São Paulo, Brasil

Re: Conversions

Postby carlos » 18 Mar 2012 02:20

Vaarky, I particularly liked your suggestion very much. That would be a perfect compromise for those users weary of sharing their source codes. But it would require a new upload system for files intended for archival, because the ordinary wiki upload system cannot guarantee such level of privacy.

A simpler solution could be to use an Yahoo!groups properly configured for such purpose. Notation files received for archival would be sent to an e-mail as, for instance, cpdl-archive@yahoogroups.com, and only authorized personnel would have access to them.

vaarky
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 07:28

Re: Conversions

Postby vaarky » 18 Mar 2012 06:39

I agree that there would need to be a process that keeps those files separate, but I am not enthusiastic about using Yahoogroups. Given that it would require someone to create a Yahoo account if they don't already have one, can you say more about why this would be an advantage over using a separate e-mail alias within the CPDL domain name? I also would prefer to have a form associated with submissions, so CPDL can specify the type of information (including consent) needed. I'd love it if the system e-mailed the form with the attachment in the same message.

bobnotts
Site Admin
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Mar 2006 19:05
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: Conversions

Postby bobnotts » 18 Mar 2012 11:10

Good idea Vaarky. Rather than uploading the files to the CPDL server on the wiki platform, or to a Yahoo group largely out of our control, why not have a separate area of one server which admins can upload to? The files would have to be sent to a mailing list, eg. archive@cpdl.org which would be distributed to admins. Unless there's a better way of doing it? Filenames would be the CPDL catalogue number.
Robert Nottingham
CPDL Administrator and Chair of the Board of Directors
User pageTalk page

vaarky
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 07:28

Re: Conversions

Postby vaarky » 18 Mar 2012 16:33

I'm thinking that admins can just save a batch of these files to the appropriate filename and scp them directly onto the proper directory on the server, or can do that on a piece-meal basis.

carlos
Site Admin
Posts: 1797
Joined: 19 Aug 2008 15:26
Location: São Paulo, Brasil

Re: Conversions

Postby carlos » 19 Mar 2012 03:13

There are a couple of options available; we can discuss the technicalities later, on a specific topic, if you all agree.

vaarky
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 07:28

Re: Conversions

Postby vaarky » 20 Mar 2012 06:14

Sounds good to me.

CHGiffen
Site Admin
Posts: 1678
Joined: 16 Sep 2005 21:22
Location: Hudson, Wisconsin, USA

Re: Conversions

Postby CHGiffen » 20 Mar 2012 18:51

I've been chuckling a bit over this, as the "archival" idea sounds a little bit like CPDL offering "estate-planning" or "just-in-case-something-bad-happens" services!?!?? :D

I'm not against it, mind you - I'm just not sure if I'm all for it (as I inch closer to the grave). :)

I guess it is a question of just how much control an editor/composer might wish to relinquish over her/his editions/compositions, at least while still alive.
Charles H. Giffen
President of CPDL and
Manager of ChoralWiki
User pageTalk pageComposer page

Early Choral Music? Zephyrus (I sang 12 seasons 1992-2004 with this group).

vaarky
Moderator
Posts: 1986
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 07:28

Re: Conversions

Postby vaarky » 21 Mar 2012 04:27

Getcher revocable living music trust right heah...


Return to “Musical questions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests