----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 23 January, 2003 17:30 Subject: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on control ramping]
> >>> > In this context it's seems a little ridiculous that the MMA is requiring > members of the mailing list to sign on with $450. > <<< > > The MMA is a trade association, akin to a standards body like the AES. Do > you also object to the fact that AES, IEEE, etc, charge membership dues, and > that they too hold evolving standards discussions for members only? How > does the fact that this happens to be _software_ standard mandate that dues > be waived? > Can you explain to us exactely what the MMA is offering in exchange of this money? I don't see any cost associated with the need to create an open plugin system: the only thing need I see is the good will of every one involved to try and work together for the good of all. Mailling lists cost nothing to create and just a little bit of administration (sourceforge or savanah could host it without problems and for free). And I fail to see what more we need that is so costly. > >>> > Applying closed methods of communication, or at least requiring a sum of > money to be paid to have discussion rights is the equivalent of telling > us Open Source developers that either you don't understand what we are > doing and why or you totally disagree with the paradigm we work in. > <<< > > This isn't about being for or against open source, or a lack of > understanding. This is about recognizing that developing and supporting a > standard requires legal work, marketing, publications, etc, and that these > cost money. Call it "old economy" if you must, but if you want to > interoperate with the major companies in the industry, the MMA is forum > where they gather, and the MMA has a cost structure associated with it. > I totaly disagree here: if Steinberg + MOTU + Cakewalk + Emagic + Plugins developpers joind hands and decide to use a common standard I see very little need in marketing and legal work. I think the problems are more political than anything else and I can understand why steinberg and emagic (for example) would prefer to hide a standard war behind closed doors instead of on a public mailling list. > [2] Design. This will be open to MMA members only. If you want the legal > protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for > "stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining. Even some open-source > developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after > selling a very small number of units. > What protection does the MMA provides? > [4] Adoption. Once again, private to MMA members only. > > IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the commercial companies (many of > whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join the MMA, while a > sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives us > 2 standards, and nobody wins. > Better keep things really open then don't you think? That's the best way to keep things on one track. > -Ron > Sebastien