I personally find it rather confusing that anyone would use the GPL or
LGPL for non-software, since they are specifically designed for that
purpose. Having said that though, I don't see how a GPL SoundFont
could be construed as requiring the software that is loading it to
also be GPL, since there is really no "linking" occurring. The clause
in the GPL that requires the source code to be made available with any
changes that have been made (if publicly distributed), seems to also
be non-applicable, since there is no source code. I could see how it
might mean that any changes made to the SoundFont would also need to
be made publicly available, in a commercial product or otherwise,
especially in the case of an embedded device, where the user might not
be able to so easily extract the SoundFont from the device.
Just wanted to set that straight, since it seems like there is so much
misinformation that goes around in regards to software licenses, in
particular the GPL and LGPL. I'd suggest people use the creative
commons licenses for their SoundFont files or better yet, make them
public domain and make it easy on anyone wanting to utilize it in
their own music. From what I have seen even most of the creative
commons licenses require attribution (crediting the author). Imagine
listing all of the authors of individual samples on the back of your
CD, whether it be a simple snare or analog synth sample. I question
how many free SoundFont files are completely original works to begin
with, since a lot of sample borrowing happens out there. If you want
to make a buck on your SoundFont, make it not for commercial use and
sell commercial licenses.
</GPL_LGPL_SoundFont_Rant>
Element Green