I don't think Csound is actually public domain. I think the original
copyright is still in force. Correct me, Vercoe or ffitch, if I'm wrong!

As far as I can tell, what we're doing here is taking "freely available for
education or research" and stretching it wildly. The critical points are
selling music made with Csound and the redistribution of Csound sources.

As for efficiency, Csound is not an interpreter, it is a compiler. An
interpreter re-translates each line of source code each time that line is
executed. A compiler translates source code before execution, and then
executes each line in translated form. Csound translates the orc language
into "instrument templates" stored in memory before running them. I suppose
Csound is more like a pseudo-code compiler, but the pseudo-code is in a sort
of one-to-one relationship with the audio operations, due to the "assembler"
style syntax of the orc language, which I believe is why Csound is
efficient.

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Troxler 
To: Michael Gogins 
Cc: csound@maths.ex.ac.uk 
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: Enough with the "if" argument - Csound is *supposed* to be
ancient!


>Michael Gogins wrote:
>>
>> Why do I use Csound? I could write a software synthesizer myself, or I'd
be
>> willing to pay up to several thousand dollars for a software synthesizer.
>>
>> I use it because I'd rather compose than program, and Csound can make
cool
>> sounds as it is; as long as I'm doing algorithmic synthesis and
composition
>> in the first place, it's got the most sounds and the largest community of
>> users and the biggest library of patches.
>>
>
>Yup, I hear you! Csound, by luck of the draw, got that critical mass
>going.
>At least it appears that way, judging purely based on the volume of mail
>on the Csound list as compared with the mail for other synthesis
>programs.
>
>> And in fact it's not inefficient.
>>
>> Earlier I said I dream about (a) fast SAOLC or (b) something like JSyn
only
>> with plugin opcodes. To this I would add (c) a reworked Csound with:
>>
>
>
>Ok, maybe you missed my point, or maybe it's just too late in the night
>for *me* to grok what you're saying. But when you talk about "plugin"
>opcodes ...
>
>All I was saying, is that Csound *interprets* the orch code, as opposed
>to generating code which it then calls. The approach I'm talking about
>would, I think, preclude the use of run-time-linked code, like "plugin
>opcodes". Think of a C-compiler, which generates specific machine code.
>Then think of the same thing, but compiling Csound orch code instead,
>and then running it for a given score. The latter is closes to what
>Common Lisp Music, for example, does. That's all I'm saying. I can't
>believe that, for example, realizing a DX7 algo in csound, would be
>anywhere near as fast as doing the same thing using CLM, which actually
>generates C-code based on your instrument definition, then compiles it,
>and calls it.
>
>>
>> Open Source/CVS build model.
>>
>
>Is Csound now public domain? The source code used to carry a copyright
>notice, to the effect that distribution of derivative works were
>prohibited without consent from MIT. Well, to be honest, I  *know* this
>must have changed, but the version I downloaded from Bath just a couple
>of years ago, *still* had this notice! What gives?
>
>--  Larry Troxler --  lt@westnet.com  --  Patterson, NY USA  --
>