Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!mattd From: mattd@Apple.COM (Matt Deatherage) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: MidiSynth Message-ID: <53497@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 30 May 91 23:08:44 GMT References: <9031@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> <11596@hub.ucsb.edu> Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 69 In article <11596@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) writes: > > Here's the deal: I wrote an application (read: I WROTE, I did not "put >together" some routines I had previosuly had as Matt has said elsewhere) that >is an NDA that plays & records songs (it does 256k songs and 16 tracks >versus 128k and 8 SLab tracks). Joyce gave me $50 then and I licensed >SynthLab. I then distributed SynthLAB. You can distribute it >non-electronically as long as you do not get a profit (ie, give it to a >friend, etc). However, since Joyce (who is the forum leader of the music >forum on america online) paid for the damn thing, I put in a clause that it >can only be distributed electronically on America Online. > A few things pop up here: 1) I have no reason to doubt your account of things -- you were there and I wasn't. I do recall reading a post of yours somewhere that said most of the routines in the NDA were already written, and that you had to assemble them. If I misinterpreted this, I apologize. >Fairly simple, right? Jeez, I've been getting mail accusing me of doing all >sorts of evil things because of Deatherage's posts. I did not pay for the >SLAB license. I wrote an application for it. I WAS NEVER TOLD of any >"problems" with licensing SLab (in fact, the person who gave me the license >was aware of its main intent - to be dist on AO & user groups). > 2) I hope you're passing all complaints along to Joyce, if it is indeed her who is responsible for things. 3) It doesn't matter who paid the licensing fee if your name is on the license. 4) At any rate, it's a violation of the intent of the license -- we have separate license agreements for electronic and non-electronic distribution of Apple Software, and they are not interchangeable. (The only reason we go through this exercise to begin with is that Apple has to do so to assure continued legal protection of its property. The separate electronic license is necessary because electronic distribution can let a product spread worldwide in a single day, often without the appropriate legal mumbo-jumbo that protects Apple. The validity of software copyrights is _not_ the subject here; please direct such follow-ups elsewhere.) Because of this misunderstanding, we are now examining standard licensing agreements to make sure that our intentions for software distribution are clearer in the future. I believe this is delaying licensing of some products. This is not exactly Parik's fault, although I personally believe this issue brought the matter to a head sooner than might have otherwise happened. >(any apple people - flame in email, I don't want a discussion in csa on my > faults, I realize something may have gone wrong). > I don't mean to prolong this either, but I want you to know I'm not out to get you or anything. I'm just tired of the steady stream of mail that says "How come Apple plays favorites with America Online and won't let anyone else distribute MIDI Synth? That's pretty pin-headed." I just want everyone to know that we're not being any more pin-headed than normal in this case. >-- >Apple II Forever | 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | IBMs get the job done >Parik Rao | Amiga - for the creative mind | Class of 1994 > Macintosh - buy it or Apple will sue you. -- ============================================================================ Matt Deatherage, Developer Technical | The opinions expressed herein are Support, Apple Computer, Inc. | not those of Apple Computer, and Personal mail only, please. Thanks. | shame on you for thinking otherwise. ^^^^^^^^ Technical questions are not personal. Please post them instead. ============================================================================