On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 19:03, Paul Davis wrote: > the license is part of the agenda. >From my POV, the license and target plugin developers and users should be the first item to be agreed with MMA.
> >I want an API that may be extensible ... > >I want those extensions to be contributed ... > >I want to develop open source plugins ... > >I want to allow skilled company to write wonderful plugins ... > >I certainly don't want to pay *any* money (at least to be payed:-) ... > >I want to be involved in the design process, ... > >What I want is an API with the spirit of free software ... > > you seem to want a lot. Yeah, maybe. But they may all seem reasonable requests from the point of view of a developer who does it for free. > look, most of the people on the GMPI list would love to be able to > define the plugin API they use to meet all their own needs and > desires. unfortunately, we've already seen the result of this approach > - multiple API's most of which have identical core functionality and > make life miserable for developers and users. If, as for LADSPA we could define a *good* API that hosts will use, the MMA could later accept it as a standard de facto. LADSPA is simple (simpler than this new API) but it worked for it. You and other developers on LAD developed it without the MMA. > Great. Another API. Besides, the GNU project already has Octal, which > probably overlaps with this very significantly. In fact, I was thinking of plugins for Octal, which eventually could be THE host (but it of course depends on how Octal will evolve). > >a) Hope that MMA will reconsider the design phase. > >b) Develop my own API (hopefully with other free software developers). > >c) Don't care, and do other things in my free time. > > i hope its (c). (a) is important because we've already seen how slow > the requirements process is when its open to anyone on a mailing > list. (b) is just going to make things more confusing for > everyone. please wait for GMPI to fail first. :( This is the problem of free software, too many projects with same goals. But hey, I'm doing it for free and for me, giving eventual results to anyone who wants. I don't see in this sense why it is so negative. I agree with you on the reasons for not creating a new API, I am only not so happy with the fact that actual development will be done only by MMA members. I'm not so skilled like the developers you cited, but perhaps I can contribute with some ideas I didn't see considered. I haven't done it yet for the reasons I've written. Marco
