raymond wrote: > On Thursday 11 June 2009 08:19:56 Grammostola Rosea wrote: > >> lasconic wrote: >> >>> I took some time yesterday night to take a look to improvisor code and >>> estimate the cost of adding musicXML export. Import is indeed more >>> complicated. >>> I downloaded the code of improvisor 3.39. It's the last and only code >>> available. Improvisor inner model is a little bit different than musicXML >>> one. Common practice in musicXML is to don't "time" the chords and put >>> them in the middle of notes. At least, this is my experience with finale >>> musicXML export features. >>> I managed to make a quick and dirty prototype to export a simple melody >>> (no tuplet) and chord root and bass (no extension yet). Chords are in >>> between notes but lily+musicML2ly shoud be able to deal with it. >>> Unfortunately, 3.39 is an old version, and according to Bob Keller the >>> code base changed a lot but it's not public yet. >>> With some more voices, perhaps we can convince Bob Keller and his team to >>> open up the repository to the public. After all, improvisor is a fine >>> piece of software which can benefit from open development, moreover if >>> time and resources are an issue. >>> >>> Lasconic >>> >> Thanks man. I'll forward this to Bob Keller too. >> I think he mentioned in a message that he is willing to give developers >> svn access to the recent code. >> > > Really. Last year I found Improvisor and wanted to contribute to it, so I got > in contact with Bob. I made some changes to integrate the application better > into the desktop (on Mac OS X also) and did some initial cleanup. > > The reaction I received was less than welcoming. In fact, the message I got > was that they were not interested in really allowing outside developers to > contribute. Thus my changes were never used, or considered as far as I can > tell. What I got was a bunch of excuses about the situation with the > application until finally this Bob guy came straight out and harshly refused > to cooperate on development. I even had to ask numbers of time before I could > finally get the source code and this resulted in it finally being posted on > the group. > > Basically the group that works on it is his student research group at the > educational institution he is employed at. So it appears that they just want > to keep all the glory and credit for the application to themselves by > disallowing outside contributions. This is really not manner that we usually > associate with FOSS. The fact that you have to subscribe to a user group > even to get the binary is one big clue. To my mind the only reason it is under > GPL is because they use other libraries that are, not because they see some > benefit to doing so. > > The only way to go with this application, at the moment, is to fork it. I was > considering doing this a while ago, but have other projects keeping me busy. > If you can convince them to open it up, great. I wouldn't hold my breath > though. If enough other developers are interested then I could give some time > to a fork. > > > This is what he replied me
"If there are developers who are serious, I could provide svn access to our repository. Right now there are 3 people who are active. We are about to release version 4, which is almost a year out from version 3.39 that is in the user group. " So I think we have to go the working together way first. I've forwarded the message of Lasconic to him, let's wait for his reply on that. Kind regards, \r _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
