On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote > If I am to argue this position to the other members of the Technical > Committee, I would like to be able to prove to myself not just that swami > can be used to author soundfonts for use with fluidsynth, but that > fluidsynth is used by swami *in the process* of authoring these soundfonts. > If hitting those piano keys to test my one-sample soundfont is in fact > running them through fluidsynth, then I'm content to call this a significant > free use of fluidsynth.
swami depends on libfluidsynth which is part of the fluidsynth source package. > > If, OTOH, what I've done so far didn't make use of fluidsynth, I'm not > content with the explanation that one *can* use swami to create soundfonts > when so far I haven't created anything by this method that's worth using. :) Yeah, same problem here with a program called gcc :) No honestly, lets look at it from another point of view, why should fluidsynth go into contrib when 1) there are free soundfonts available e.g. see http://freepats.opensrc.org/sf2/violin/ for one with a very clear licensing 2) You can create soundfonts with swami 3) You need fluidsynth in order to play your soundfonts and use them with a sequencer. I might not be up to date with the policies regarding contrib, but to me this case is so clear that I am starting to get a bit impatient. Please explain why fluidsynth should go into contrib, because I really don't get it. Günter PS: if your interested in how to create soundfonts, I took notes while creating one http://gige.xdv.org/swami.txt
