Do you think, CC should have his own soundfiletype? That makes it a lot easer to share soundfiles with other people. There could be a function like sound,playFile(). We have with the normal paint format, a filetype, witch is accepted by the most graphic programs. So if we had a standart filetype, user can just upload songs they made and other people can play it with her favourite player. I only want to know, if the Community want this. The technical details coming after that.

Yes; Thumb Up
No : Thumb Down

To quote from #237:

There are several players for the Note Block Studio format, such as BombBloke's Note program. This is pretty much the defacto standard,

As it's an already established file format, it makes sense to stick with it.

Like @SquidDev quoted, Note Block Studio effectibly is that format.

If you are looking for a way to make a pull request then you could add an APi with some utility functions to process the format.

I see, threes a API for this format, but it is licensee under MIT, so you will have to put the license at the begin of the code. Maybe @CrazedProgrammer can made a PR with this API renamed as sound API.

I do not think wave should be included in the CC codebase, because nearly no programs (outside of audio players and maybe games) are going to use it. It just doesn't really fit. It works way better as a separate API.
Just having a speaker peripheral with a method for playing sounds is enough for CC.

@CrazedProgrammer Can I use your API to write a better API for CC?

@Wilma456 It's licensed under MIT, so you can, as long as it conforms to the license of course.

@Wilma456 info on the MIT license

Summary, modification and redistribution are allowed provided as the license is included (comment at top of file will do). You may also want to link back to the original API, but you don't have to.

I'm waiting for the OK from @dan200 before starting

I don't think you can just link to a page that describes the MIT license.
The license states: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I know, what the MIT license is, but I think @dan200 doesn't want that text in Computercraft.

I don't think @dan200 has indicated either way on whether to have the license info for code in the files. I can understand not wanting long licenses though. Perhaps something like this?

-- File name: example.lua
-- Author: Lupus590
-- Date: 25/05/2017 (DD/MM/YYYY)
-- License: MIT is available at https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

print("example for licensing stuff")

@CrazedProgrammer I believe it's condoned when the full license would be impractical.

@Lupus590 I doubt it. The license itself does not state that. If you do find a good source for that statement, please share.

I've found evidence against my statement so maybe I was wrong.

You most likely were. If you really care about not having a 20 line license at the top of a source file you can just put it in a separate file, for example licenses/wave, so that the full license is still included in the distribution. In fact, that is already done with the LuaJ license in this repository.

@apemanzilla Wilma wants Dans opinion on where to place the license for the wave API that CrazedProgrammer made

Still waiting for the answer of @dan200

#281 (comment)

@Wilma456

I see, threes a API for this format, but it is licensee under MIT

This is really not a problem, since MIT is one of the freest licenses out there.

no