Re: [LAD] A question for power HW experts

[Jens M Andreasen]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 23:52 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> What would you recommend to look at ?
> 

For a four-way, I would - because of cache issues and bandwidth
considerations - recommend NOT to look at Core2.

Nehalem looks like the platform of choice at this point in time.

/j

> TIA,
> 

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] A question for power HW experts

[David Robillard]

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:39 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have been using an asus board with intel core quad cpu q6600 for about 
> a year now with no hassles.

Ditto.  Same CPU on a Asus P5E-VM HDMI

-dr


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] A question for power HW experts

[Raymond Martin]

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52:23 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
> machine to be used for audio processing (and running
> Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
> essential.
>
> What would you recommend to look at ?

I had been looking around a while back for a good audio motherboard
and Gigabyte seemed to pop up quite a bit in terms of good SNR and other
specs for onboard sound.

As for offboard/adapter card, did you look at the M-Audio offerings?

Your PSU can make a difference in terms of noise and interference,
a lot of the ones your get with pre-built machines are crud. Get a
good one (heuristic: heavier ones are better for the same price, wattage,
etc.--big transformer, caps, heath sinks, and so on). The higher end
ones come with good shielding on cables.

Raymond


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] A question for power HW experts

[Patrick Shirkey]

Hi,

I have been using an asus board with intel core quad cpu q6600 for about 
a year now with no hassles.

Does have a fairly noisy fan but I haven't actually looked into 
replacing it with a quieter system.

I have found asus boards to be very compatible with Linux and especially 
my audio needs over the years.


Cheers.




> Hello all,
>
> I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
> machine to be used for audio processing (and running
> Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
> essential.
>
> What would you recommend to look at ?
>
> TIA,
>
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Python and MIDI orientation for a project

[Hernán Ordiales]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Carlos
Sanchiavedraz wrote:
> Really good info, Hernan. Thanks.
>
> Just a question, given the names of both, does it mean that pyPortMidi
> is not for RT?

no, they are just names, both are realtime capable...

> P.S. Nice to write to you again -on other list this time :).

;-)

> //On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes
>
>
> 2009/8/4, Hernán Ordiales :
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> You can also take a look at PortMidi[1] or RtMidi[2] python bindings
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> [1] http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~harrison/code.html
>> [2] http://trac2.assembla.com/pkaudio/wiki/pyrtmidi
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Carlos
>> Sanchiavedraz wrote:
>>> Hi Harry.
>>>
>>> It's curious... you got the point I had in mind :)
>>> My main idea is to extend the configuration dialog so that, same as
>>> you can map wiimote keys/events to keyboard keys, you could map
>>> wiimote keys/events to CCs helped by a select box with a list of
>>> available CCs; first maybe a usefull and comprehensive subset and then
>>> the whole set in later versions.
>>> Maybe we can add the "advanced" section as well. But first I'm trying
>>> to get information about the other topics on my list :)
>>>
>>> Thanks Harry.
>>>
>>> //On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/8/2, Harry Van Haaren :
 Hey Carlos,

 Python & the wiimote is a nice combo, i've played with it and midi a
 little
 too..
 Not at all familiar with desktop applet coding, so ill leave that to the
 pro's!

 As far as the "what midi CC bindings" are useful, could you put in a
 "Drop-down-box" or "Entry-Box"
 for the CC's? Because there will always be some use for it. Perhaps have
 an
 "Advanced" section, in
 which one can manually type the CC Numbers, and have the "Simple"
 section
 up
 with a drop down of
 the most common CC's?

 Becuase I can really see the use of having a wiiMote around for
 debugging
 audio/midi progams with you applet.
 It would mean you could easily send any Midi CC's to a program using an
 "Easy-Access" unit. (IE: pick it up, use it,
 not like a keyboard where you'd spend time mapping a key to a different
 MIDI
 CC etc)

 Hope the project goes well for you, once im home ill check how much is
 done
 and where to get the Alpha release.. ;-)
 -Harry




 On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Carlos Sanchiavedraz
 wrote:

> I have notice I forgot to send this mail to LAD as well. Sorry :)
>
> Here it is.
> Of course, thanks in advance.
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Carlos Sanchiavedraz 
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:18:17 +0200
> Subject: Python and MIDI orientation for a project
> To: linux-audio-user 
>
> Hi folks.
>
> I'm cooperating with a friend and fellow to improve his project
> related to wiimote.
>
> The project is Wiican[1]. In short, it is a tool (a system tray icon
> actually) that makes it easier to connect the wiimote and configure
> and create key mappings for use at your will. It's written in python
> and uses bluez, hal with dbus, wminput and cwiid.
>
> My goal is to add some layer in such a way that you can map wiimote
> events to MIDI.  And maybe, to include it on the next improved release
> of Musix.
>
> So, in adittion to my researches on the subject and what I already
> know about MIDI CCs and so, I would like some advice and guidance
> about how to:
> - implement MIDI in python (which CCs are a must for you, create and
> send MIDI messages, libs, bindings, reference projects),
> - implement Jack and Alsa MIDI ports in python (libs, bindings,
> reference projects),
>
> ... and every other interesting information or experiences on this.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> [1] https://launchpad.net/wiican
>
>
> --
> Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
> * Musix GNU+Linux
>  http://www.musix.es
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
> * Musix GNU+Linux
>  http://www.musix.es
> ___
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> linux-audio-u...@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
>>> * Musix GNU+Linux
>>>  http://www.musix.es
>>> ___
>>> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
>>> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
>>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hernán
>> http://h.ordia.com.ar
>> GnuPG: 0xEE8A3FE9
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
> * Musix GNU+Linux
>  http://www.musix.es
>



-- 
Hernán
http://h.ordia.com.ar
GnuPG: 0xEE8A3FE9
___
Lin

Re: [LAD] A question for power HW experts

[Jörn Nettingsmeier]

Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
> machine to be used for audio processing (and running 
> Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
> essential.
> 
> What would you recommend to look at ?

if noise is not a problem, no problem. if it is, check the silent boxes
from thomas-krenn.com (not silent at all, but only obnoxious, not
earth-shattering). they are stand-alone towers, but rack-mount kits are
available.

if heat is a problem (and i think it always is), pay special attention
to which cpu core you are getting - generally, the smaller the process,
the better, but they don't always tell you. don't use the fastest one
you can get (bad price/performace and also probably on the edge of its
thermal design power).

best,

jörn

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today

[Ralf Mardorf]

alex stone wrote:
> Call me cynical, and the plugin authors certainly have the last say,
> but there seems to be a rather large dose of hypocrisy going on
> here
>   

In the last days we simply became wiser. Learning isn't Pecksniffery.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Ralf Mardorf]

Arnold Krille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
>   
>> I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
>> proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
>> violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
>> GPL) software.
>> Comments?
>> 
>
> As far as I know this is right. Because GPL is a license (thats what the L 
> stands for:), not an end-user agreement. All the GPL talks about is 
> (re-)publishing. So as long as you do not re-distribute your app (outside 
> your 
> home/business) no one knows and cares.
>
> And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-
> version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before 
> publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of 
> your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't 
> know...
>
> Arnold

You can skip 1., 2.1 and 2.2 and directly read 3. ;).

1.

If somebody has got a website made with Drupal (GPL) and he wants 
visitors of the side to install the proprietary flash player to use the 
web site, this won't be a problem. But will it be a violation, if 
somebody publishes a web site done with GPL software and proprietary 
software? Doing this isn't a distribution of the software. Doing this 
has nothing to do with with reprogramming the software, but even if 
somebody publishes a website done with reprogrammed GPL software, it's 
not publishing the reprogrammed software.

GPL has nothing to do with just using software.

2.1

I download your GPL software and only change the copyright, I claim that 
I'm the original coder and in addition I add comments that you are liar, 
you have stolen my software. I copy this software with the faked 
copyright to 100 DVDs, but I keep this copies my own.

This isn't a violation of the GPL.

2.2

I take those copies with me, while I'm using the short distance public 
transport and I forget them in a bus, without purpose, some people take 
a copy and install it to their desktop computers.

This might be a violation, but the whole situation is grotesquely.

3.

E.g. Cinelerra

I guess this is software that links to Non-GPL software.

"64 Studio cannot include it as part of the distribution because it has 
too many patent encumbered dependencies. But not to worry, if you 
install it yourself from other sources it is yours to use as you please! 
And this is that story..." (http://www.64studio.com/howto_cinelerra)

 From the file COPYING by "git clone 
git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra":

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   Version 2, June 1991"

 From the file LICENSE by "git clone 
git://git.cinelerra.org/j6t/cinelerra.git my_cinelerra":

"In addition to the GPL's warranty stipulation, Cinelerra is distributed 
WITHOUT
GUARANTEED SUPPORT; without even the guarantee of ADDITIONAL LABOR. Support
that is not guaranteed includes technical support, compiler troubleshooting,
debugging, version matching, updating, among other additional labor which
may or may not be required to meet a user's requirements.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
   59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  
02111-1307  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] List archives

[Kai Vehmanen]

Hi,

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Robin Gareus wrote:


There seem to be several archives of this list:

  http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/


The "original" LAD list until 2002 server. Since then, they keep
backup-copies of all list emails; subscription there is no longer possible.


well, to be precise, the list of LAD hosts:

 - 1998-2001: ginette.musique.umontreal.ca (Alex Burton)
  (e.g. http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/1998/0007.html)
 - 2001-2007: music.columbia.edu (Douglas Repetto, Jörn Nettingsmeier)
  http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2001/May/0596.html
 - 2007-: lists.linuxaudio.org (Marc-Olivier Barre)
  http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2007/02/0828.html

The last two hosts have maintained their own web archives for lists. Then 
we additionally have various other 3rd party archives around the web.


Anyways, the original host at umontreal.ca did not provide a list archive. 
So in March 2000 I volunteered to set up and host the archive (with an 
address-mangling script from Paul Winkler that is still in use ;)):


  http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2000/Mar/0002.html

... in 2004, I couldn't anymore provide the bandwidth for the archive:

  http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2004/10/0148.html

But Fernando offered to host the pages and thus the pages moved to 
'lalists.stanford.edu/la*'. So these still combine the archives spanning 
all three list hosts. But like in 2004, I'm happy to get rid of the 
archive maintenance. :) And agreed, the best solution is to merge the 
archives with those already at lists.linuxaudio.org.


Now, I can upload the hypermail created html tree (of certain 
years/months) to lists.linuxaudio.org, but mboxes will require more effort 
(there is no clean set of mbox files for the whole archive, but the 
archive has been created from personal mbox folders from various people 
and I don't have the full set at hand -- I can try to dig it up though).



@Nando: on http://lalists.stanford.edu/ "website" links should point to
http://lists.linuxaudio.org


Thanks, updated.___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

[LAD] A question for power HW experts

[Fons Adriaensen]

Hello all,

I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
machine to be used for audio processing (and running 
Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
essential.

What would you recommend to look at ?

TIA,

-- 
FA

Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today

[Michael Fisher]

Good point(s).  I can only assume that they were assuming that Mac users 
don't know what LADSPA is and that the Mac users wouldn't pay much 
attention to the new LADSPA folder that appears on the system.  To many 
assumptions there.  I have mixed emotions about this. 

Whatever the case may be, I'm glad that I could make you guys aware of 
what is happening.  And if it leads to a lost friendship with the guy I 
know at Beat Kangz, then oh-well.  I don't support theft of any kind.  
If they really wanted to use LADSPA in a legit manner.  Couldn't they 
create a separate installer package that includes all of the plugins' 
original code, makefiles, licenses and what not and have it just install 
a LADSPA plugin set for their program and others to use?  I guess in a 
way, separate the LADSPA stuff from their app and then just utilize the 
plugins like a normal application would.  Ardour packages LADSPA plugins 
with the Mac OSX with no problems.  But then again some of the Ardour 
developers are the LADSPA developers.  Who knows, maybe that is where 
they got the idea from.  I think one of the Beat Kangz guys is a 
professor(if you want to call it that) at SAE in Nashville (don't quote 
me on that). 

Perhaps that would be to much work for them.  One thing is for sure, 
they are using open source gpl software.  I can't remember what, but the 
stdout I got from terminal reported that the Beat Thang was linking to 
something I had installed via macports.  I think it was freetype or 
something like that.  Whatever it is, it is included with MacOSX itself, 
because it wasn't included with their installer.  I have my system check 
the macports LIB path before the OSX LIB path.  But, say you are using 
the Beat Thang on Windows, then they would probably have to include 
whatever open source package they are using since windows doesn't 
include anything like that with it.

I kind of want to install this thing on Windows and see what pops up.  
Its a crying shame that I don't use windows.  Snaps!

-Mike

alex stone wrote:
> Interesting stuff, espcially when you consider that but a week or 2
> ago, another chap from a university, who was unaware of the
> implications of the GPL, got nailed for not releasing his code as per
> a strict definition of the GPL, and took a lot of sustained abuse for
> it as a result. He's moved quickly to remedy this and asked for help,
> not wanting to let ignorance of the facts get in the way of doing the
> right thing.
>
> In contrast, a commercial company has simply swiped plugins,
> themselves under a GPL or derivative, and ignored the licensing
> requirements contained within, making no reference to the authors, and
> or assigning credit within the rules. And it certainly looks like they
> weren't planning to do so until it became public, and they had little
> choice. Far from being a 'sweetheart" the owner has got caught with
> his hand in the p2p equivalent of the software till, and has issued
> soothing noise to all and sundry, in an effort to keep the potentially
> unprofitable publicity to a minimum. And for the same reasons that our
> newest colleague got shoved down his throat, now it seems all is
> warmth and light, because "A.J" says so.
>
> Why didn't the "wonderful" Mr. AJ contact the authors first, and
> discuss what he planned to do with them before he simply took the
> software, for profit? Or at least notified them, and credited them
> before he started counting his money, even out of common decency?
>
> Call me cynical, and the plugin authors certainly have the last say,
> but there seems to be a rather large dose of hypocrisy going on
> here
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Michael Fisher wrote:
>   
>> Everybody,
>>
>> Good.  I wasn't really trying to get Beat Kangz in trouble or anything
>> like that.  More than anything I was just disappointed to see that these
>> LADSPA plugins were being distributed with their software with not a
>> single mention of credit to the actual developers.  As a computer
>> programmer myself I understand the work involved in creating code.  The
>> way I found out about this was me running the program from terminal and
>> with the mac Console open to submit some bug reports to them.  That
>> reminds me, I still need to do that.
>>
>> I actually know one of the staff members at beat kangz, so I really am
>> not interested in causing trouble.  Credit due, where credit deserved is
>> all.  And I figured the LADSPA developers should be aware of what was
>> going on.  I suppose it's not really that big of a deal, because say I
>> had those plugins already installed on my system, then the Beat Kangz
>> software would only be searching for and loading them.  My problem was
>> that their installer included them, which would be distribution of GPL'd
>> software.
>>
>> That would be pretty awesome if they decided to open development.
>> Really, it would only make their products much stronger.  If their using
>> LADSPA plugins, I can 

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Arnold Krille wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 22:11:40 you wrote:
>> It's a very strange condition I think, and one with countless
>> ambiguities: can you reuse code you previously wrote for a completely
>> separate open source project but own copyright to?
>
> Actually you can. If you have to copyright, you can re-license your works as
> you like. Only you cannot really un-GPL your code after publishing it, you can
> only un-GPL future versions.

Yes, but the question here is not whether the code is GPL'd or whether
you own it but whether it was written "while using" the Qt open source
edition.  It has nothing to do with the copyright or licensing status
of the code, it's just an arbitrary and surprisingly vague restriction
contained in the commercial licensing agreement.


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] [LAU] Python and MIDI orientation for a project

[Dominic Sacré]

On Monday 03 of August 2009 23:06:34 harryhaa...@gmail.com wrote:
> And on the topic for a second, python bindings exist for MidiDings, a
> module that can use both AlsaSeq & Jack Midi.
> I have a very limited amound of experince with it, as i found the
> AlsaSeq python package to be much simpler to use.

Just to clarify, mididings is primarily intended as a standalone MIDI 
processor. Usually its sole input/output is MIDI, and it just happens to 
use Python for its configuration. It's not really a MIDI API to be used 
in larger Python programs, and I'm pretty sure it completely sucks for 
that purpose.

Now... who's going to finally write proper Python bindings for JACK 
MIDI? :)


Dominic


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Arnold Krille]

Hi,

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 22:11:40 you wrote:
> It's a very strange condition I think, and one with countless
> ambiguities: can you reuse code you previously wrote for a completely
> separate open source project but own copyright to?

Actually you can. If you have to copyright, you can re-license your works as 
you like. Only you cannot really un-GPL your code after publishing it, you can 
only un-GPL future versions.
Unless of course you signed a contract with anyone that gives him an exclusive 
license. Which is the default with most/all work-contracts as I pointed out 
earlier...

> do you have to
> audit everyone you employ to ensure not only that they own the
> copyright for code they might incorporate, but also that it wasn't
> written when they were using a GPL edition of Qt? what if it's code
> that doesn't itself use Qt but was written as part of an application
> that did? are you legally permitted to use code that someone else not
> associated with your organisation wrote when using the GPL edition and
> then re-licensed to you? what about code within Qt itself that was
> written by someone using the GPL edition and then re-licensed to Qt?
> etc, etc.
> As far as I'm aware there are no reliable answers to questions like
> these, but Nokia persist with the clause (at least I think they do --
> it certainly lasted beyond the shift to LGPL) presumably because
> there's no obvious better way to avoid the situation you describe.
> Companies presumably pay up partly because they like risk even less
> than they like expense.

And maybe they think that Qt is actually pretty good so you can pay them. And 
maybe for real programming business the development-only phase is so short 
(because of the good Qt-API and documentation) that its not that much money to 
pay for the back-dated license. ;-)

Arnold


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>>
>> Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones
>> making the violation.  You have to give special permission to do this:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
>
> As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation.
> Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license
> used.

Yes.  I've already retracted my statement.  I was wrong.

Thanks,
Gabriel
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today

[alex stone]

Interesting stuff, espcially when you consider that but a week or 2
ago, another chap from a university, who was unaware of the
implications of the GPL, got nailed for not releasing his code as per
a strict definition of the GPL, and took a lot of sustained abuse for
it as a result. He's moved quickly to remedy this and asked for help,
not wanting to let ignorance of the facts get in the way of doing the
right thing.

In contrast, a commercial company has simply swiped plugins,
themselves under a GPL or derivative, and ignored the licensing
requirements contained within, making no reference to the authors, and
or assigning credit within the rules. And it certainly looks like they
weren't planning to do so until it became public, and they had little
choice. Far from being a 'sweetheart" the owner has got caught with
his hand in the p2p equivalent of the software till, and has issued
soothing noise to all and sundry, in an effort to keep the potentially
unprofitable publicity to a minimum. And for the same reasons that our
newest colleague got shoved down his throat, now it seems all is
warmth and light, because "A.J" says so.

Why didn't the "wonderful" Mr. AJ contact the authors first, and
discuss what he planned to do with them before he simply took the
software, for profit? Or at least notified them, and credited them
before he started counting his money, even out of common decency?

Call me cynical, and the plugin authors certainly have the last say,
but there seems to be a rather large dose of hypocrisy going on
here




On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Michael Fisher wrote:
> Everybody,
>
> Good.  I wasn't really trying to get Beat Kangz in trouble or anything
> like that.  More than anything I was just disappointed to see that these
> LADSPA plugins were being distributed with their software with not a
> single mention of credit to the actual developers.  As a computer
> programmer myself I understand the work involved in creating code.  The
> way I found out about this was me running the program from terminal and
> with the mac Console open to submit some bug reports to them.  That
> reminds me, I still need to do that.
>
> I actually know one of the staff members at beat kangz, so I really am
> not interested in causing trouble.  Credit due, where credit deserved is
> all.  And I figured the LADSPA developers should be aware of what was
> going on.  I suppose it's not really that big of a deal, because say I
> had those plugins already installed on my system, then the Beat Kangz
> software would only be searching for and loading them.  My problem was
> that their installer included them, which would be distribution of GPL'd
> software.
>
> That would be pretty awesome if they decided to open development.
> Really, it would only make their products much stronger.  If their using
> LADSPA plugins, I can only assume that development is taking place in a
> Linux/*nix type environment as they are obviously familiar with Linux
> Audio stuff.  Wouldn't surprise me if the actual hardware "box" is
> running an embedded linux of some sort.
>
> On the lighter side...  The Virtual Beat Thang is in my opinion pretty
> nice.  A few bugs here and there (the thing just came out), but really
> not a bad peace of work.  Great drum sounds.  I have it working with
> jack-osx which makes it even more powerful.  Might as well just make it
> natively support jack in my opinion.
>
> -Mike
>
> Ronald Stewart wrote:
>> GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz today
>> his name is A.J. and he is a sweetheart and his head is on straight.
>> He is currently going to work on an official statement and he wants to
>> embrace and thank the developers and give the authors credit on their
>> software and materials moving forward.  Additionally, Beat Kangz is
>> interested in opening up development with authors to make Beat Kangz
>> even better including funding open source development and projects.
>>
>> I think the hiccup is that they didn't know how to properly
>> thank/engage in regards to GPL and such.  It's sounds like more of a
>> noob thing and definitely not a jerk thing.  Let's give these guys the
>> benefit of the doubt because their heads are on stragiht.
>>
>> Stay tuned.
>>
>> Much Love.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Ronald Stewart
>> Creative Director
>> Trinity Audio Group Inc.
>> 9854 National Blvd. #322
>> Los Angeles CA 90034
>> 310-733-9285
>> ronaldjstew...@gmail.com 
>> www.indamixx.com 
>
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>



-- 
www.openoctave.org

midi-subscr...@openoctave.org
development-subscr...@openoctave.org
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> There's also another aspect. Company A might sell a GPL license for
> their software X to company B. They might want to do this as X uses or
> is based on GPL'd code. This means X needs to be licensed under the GPL.
> A is not obliged to distribute X to anyone but B and B might not want to
> redistribute X. B is naturally entitled to the source code of X as per
> GPL.
>
> I'm expecting this happens all the time.

Uh, that's a lot of A, B and X... you mean a company provides GPL'd
code to another, for money, for use in-house or in a service, on the
tacit understanding that it will go no further?

Reasonable supposition, but I can't help thinking it might not happen
as much as all that just because companies tend to be so GPL-averse.
I bet that what happens more often is that company A sells the
software to company B under standard proprietary terms, and just
happens to erroneously include some GPLd software in it without
mentioning it in the license...


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Arnold Krille wrote:
> And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-
> version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before
> publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of
> your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't
> know...

It's a restriction of the license for the commercial edition -- you're
not permitted to use it at all with code you developed using the GPL
(or, now, LGPL) edition previously.  If you want to do that, you have
to buy back-dated licenses covering you all the way back to the start
of development.  You're right of course that they have no obvious way
to find out, except by auditing you -- I have no idea whether anyone
has ever actually been "caught" this way.

It's a very strange condition I think, and one with countless
ambiguities: can you reuse code you previously wrote for a completely
separate open source project but own copyright to? do you have to
audit everyone you employ to ensure not only that they own the
copyright for code they might incorporate, but also that it wasn't
written when they were using a GPL edition of Qt? what if it's code
that doesn't itself use Qt but was written as part of an application
that did? are you legally permitted to use code that someone else not
associated with your organisation wrote when using the GPL edition and
then re-licensed to you? what about code within Qt itself that was
written by someone using the GPL edition and then re-licensed to Qt?
etc, etc.

As far as I'm aware there are no reliable answers to questions like
these, but Nokia persist with the clause (at least I think they do --
it certainly lasted beyond the shift to LGPL) presumably because
there's no obvious better way to avoid the situation you describe.
Companies presumably pay up partly because they like risk even less
than they like expense.


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Sampo Savolainen]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:46 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> > I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
> > proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
> > violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
> > GPL) software.
> > Comments?
> 
> As far as I know this is right. Because GPL is a license (thats what the L 
> stands for:), not an end-user agreement. All the GPL talks about is 
> (re-)publishing. So as long as you do not re-distribute your app (outside 
> your 
> home/business) no one knows and cares.
> 
> And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-
> version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before 
> publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of 
> your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't 
> know...

There's also another aspect. Company A might sell a GPL license for
their software X to company B. They might want to do this as X uses or
is based on GPL'd code. This means X needs to be licensed under the GPL.
A is not obliged to distribute X to anyone but B and B might not want to
redistribute X. B is naturally entitled to the source code of X as per
GPL.

I'm expecting this happens all the time. This should happen when B
orders a bespoke software from A and A happens to use GPL software in
the product. As far as I understand the GPL, it does not obligate A or B
to release X to anyone else.


  Sampo

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today

[Michael Fisher]

Everybody,

Good.  I wasn't really trying to get Beat Kangz in trouble or anything 
like that.  More than anything I was just disappointed to see that these 
LADSPA plugins were being distributed with their software with not a 
single mention of credit to the actual developers.  As a computer 
programmer myself I understand the work involved in creating code.  The 
way I found out about this was me running the program from terminal and 
with the mac Console open to submit some bug reports to them.  That 
reminds me, I still need to do that.

I actually know one of the staff members at beat kangz, so I really am 
not interested in causing trouble.  Credit due, where credit deserved is 
all.  And I figured the LADSPA developers should be aware of what was 
going on.  I suppose it's not really that big of a deal, because say I 
had those plugins already installed on my system, then the Beat Kangz 
software would only be searching for and loading them.  My problem was 
that their installer included them, which would be distribution of GPL'd 
software.

That would be pretty awesome if they decided to open development.  
Really, it would only make their products much stronger.  If their using 
LADSPA plugins, I can only assume that development is taking place in a 
Linux/*nix type environment as they are obviously familiar with Linux 
Audio stuff.  Wouldn't surprise me if the actual hardware "box" is 
running an embedded linux of some sort.

On the lighter side...  The Virtual Beat Thang is in my opinion pretty 
nice.  A few bugs here and there (the thing just came out), but really 
not a bad peace of work.  Great drum sounds.  I have it working with 
jack-osx which makes it even more powerful.  Might as well just make it 
natively support jack in my opinion.

-Mike

Ronald Stewart wrote:
> GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz today 
> his name is A.J. and he is a sweetheart and his head is on straight.
> He is currently going to work on an official statement and he wants to 
> embrace and thank the developers and give the authors credit on their 
> software and materials moving forward.  Additionally, Beat Kangz is 
> interested in opening up development with authors to make Beat Kangz 
> even better including funding open source development and projects.
>
> I think the hiccup is that they didn't know how to properly 
> thank/engage in regards to GPL and such.  It's sounds like more of a 
> noob thing and definitely not a jerk thing.  Let's give these guys the 
> benefit of the doubt because their heads are on stragiht.
>
> Stay tuned.
>
> Much Love.
>
> Thank you
>
> Ronald Stewart
> Creative Director
> Trinity Audio Group Inc.
> 9854 National Blvd. #322
> Los Angeles CA 90034
> 310-733-9285
> ronaldjstew...@gmail.com 
> www.indamixx.com 

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Arnold Krille]

Hi,

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
> proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
> violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
> GPL) software.
> Comments?

As far as I know this is right. Because GPL is a license (thats what the L 
stands for:), not an end-user agreement. All the GPL talks about is 
(re-)publishing. So as long as you do not re-distribute your app (outside your 
home/business) no one knows and cares.

And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-
version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before 
publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the sources of 
your app (should) not leave your home/business before that, so they wouldn't 
know...

Arnold


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Sampo Savolainen]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
> >>> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
> >>> This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a
> >>
> >> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.
> >
> > My _user_?  That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.
> > Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",
> > implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of
> > that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which
> > is obviously absurd.
> >
> 
> Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones 
> making the violation.  You have to give special permission to do this:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation.
Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license
used.

For example:

I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
GPL) software.

Comments? 


 Sampo

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

[LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today

[Ronald Stewart]

GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz today his
name is A.J. and he is a sweetheart and his head is on straight.
He is currently going to work on an official statement and he wants to
embrace and thank the developers and give the authors credit on their
software and materials moving forward.  Additionally, Beat Kangz is
interested in opening up development with authors to make Beat Kangz even
better including funding open source development and projects.

I think the hiccup is that they didn't know how to properly thank/engage in
regards to GPL and such.  It's sounds like more of a noob thing and
definitely not a jerk thing.  Let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt
because their heads are on stragiht.

Stay tuned.

Much Love.

Thank you

Ronald Stewart
Creative Director
Trinity Audio Group Inc.
9854 National Blvd. #322
Los Angeles CA 90034
310-733-9285
ronaldjstew...@gmail.com
www.indamixx.com
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
>
> effectively copying it, but it seems like a _really_ murky area to me.
> Not one that I'd ever really considered.  It doesn't seem all that
> plausible, but do you think this view is widely accepted?

Yes, I think that it is widely accepted that this is a _really_ murky 
area.  :-)

In the case of *users*... I stand corrected.  Sorry for the noise. 
(Ralf: thanks for the challenge.)

WRT the OP, here's a couple of more relevent sections from the GPL FAQ... 
and even concedes the "murky" part

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
  -and-
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper

In the case of the OP, the problem is that they were distributed 
together... as a whole.  They at least have to honor the GPL requirements 
for distributing the plugin binaries.  As for GPL-tainting the whole 
program, it has to be determined if they are interfaced "at arm's length."


Since we all know that LADSPA is a protocal that causes dynamic linking to 
object code, it seems clear that this is *not* at arms length.  But, I can 
see room for argument that LADSPA is an intermediate protocol (like 
text-based I/O, TCP/IP communication, morse code)... and that this makes 
it arms length.  So, I'm now back where we started.  :-P


Peace,
Gabriel
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Python and MIDI orientation for a project

[Carlos Sanchiavedraz]

Really good info, Hernan. Thanks.

Just a question, given the names of both, does it mean that pyPortMidi
is not for RT?

P.S. Nice to write to you again -on other list this time :).

//On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes


2009/8/4, Hernán Ordiales :
> Hi Carlos,
>
> You can also take a look at PortMidi[1] or RtMidi[2] python bindings
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~harrison/code.html
> [2] http://trac2.assembla.com/pkaudio/wiki/pyrtmidi
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Carlos
> Sanchiavedraz wrote:
>> Hi Harry.
>>
>> It's curious... you got the point I had in mind :)
>> My main idea is to extend the configuration dialog so that, same as
>> you can map wiimote keys/events to keyboard keys, you could map
>> wiimote keys/events to CCs helped by a select box with a list of
>> available CCs; first maybe a usefull and comprehensive subset and then
>> the whole set in later versions.
>> Maybe we can add the "advanced" section as well. But first I'm trying
>> to get information about the other topics on my list :)
>>
>> Thanks Harry.
>>
>> //On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes
>>
>>
>> 2009/8/2, Harry Van Haaren :
>>> Hey Carlos,
>>>
>>> Python & the wiimote is a nice combo, i've played with it and midi a
>>> little
>>> too..
>>> Not at all familiar with desktop applet coding, so ill leave that to the
>>> pro's!
>>>
>>> As far as the "what midi CC bindings" are useful, could you put in a
>>> "Drop-down-box" or "Entry-Box"
>>> for the CC's? Because there will always be some use for it. Perhaps have
>>> an
>>> "Advanced" section, in
>>> which one can manually type the CC Numbers, and have the "Simple"
>>> section
>>> up
>>> with a drop down of
>>> the most common CC's?
>>>
>>> Becuase I can really see the use of having a wiiMote around for
>>> debugging
>>> audio/midi progams with you applet.
>>> It would mean you could easily send any Midi CC's to a program using an
>>> "Easy-Access" unit. (IE: pick it up, use it,
>>> not like a keyboard where you'd spend time mapping a key to a different
>>> MIDI
>>> CC etc)
>>>
>>> Hope the project goes well for you, once im home ill check how much is
>>> done
>>> and where to get the Alpha release.. ;-)
>>> -Harry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Carlos Sanchiavedraz
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I have notice I forgot to send this mail to LAD as well. Sorry :)

 Here it is.
 Of course, thanks in advance.


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Carlos Sanchiavedraz 
 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:18:17 +0200
 Subject: Python and MIDI orientation for a project
 To: linux-audio-user 

 Hi folks.

 I'm cooperating with a friend and fellow to improve his project
 related to wiimote.

 The project is Wiican[1]. In short, it is a tool (a system tray icon
 actually) that makes it easier to connect the wiimote and configure
 and create key mappings for use at your will. It's written in python
 and uses bluez, hal with dbus, wminput and cwiid.

 My goal is to add some layer in such a way that you can map wiimote
 events to MIDI.  And maybe, to include it on the next improved release
 of Musix.

 So, in adittion to my researches on the subject and what I already
 know about MIDI CCs and so, I would like some advice and guidance
 about how to:
 - implement MIDI in python (which CCs are a must for you, create and
 send MIDI messages, libs, bindings, reference projects),
 - implement Jack and Alsa MIDI ports in python (libs, bindings,
 reference projects),

 ... and every other interesting information or experiences on this.

 Thanks in advance.

 [1] https://launchpad.net/wiican


 --
 Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
 * Musix GNU+Linux
  http://www.musix.es



 --
 Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
 * Musix GNU+Linux
  http://www.musix.es
 ___
 Linux-audio-user mailing list
 linux-audio-u...@lists.linuxaudio.org
 http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
>> * Musix GNU+Linux
>>  http://www.musix.es
>> ___
>> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
>> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Hernán
> http://h.ordia.com.ar
> GnuPG: 0xEE8A3FE9
>


-- 
Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
* Musix GNU+Linux
  http://www.musix.es
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Python and MIDI orientation for a project

[Carlos Sanchiavedraz]

Maybe I should start with the Alsaseq python package and HelperMudule,
but I would like to have Jack MIDI so I'll give MidiDings a try.

But remembering the field "Midi driver" on Qjackctl config I wonder,
if it is set to alsa_seq you can see AlsaMidi ports on JackMidi tab,
could it be better to choose Alsaseq python package because you could
also have your MIDI port on JackMidi? (at least for a first release)
Am I missing something?


2009/8/3, harryhaa...@gmail.com :
> Hey,
>
> Just to say, I think this is mainly related to Lin-Audio-Dev, so I wont be
> sending to lin-user in furthur replies..
>
> And on the topic for a second, python bindings exist for MidiDings, a
> module that can use both AlsaSeq & Jack Midi.
> I have a very limited amound of experince with it, as i found the AlsaSeq
> python package to be much simpler to use.
> (It does however not support Jack Midi.) Might i suggest to use AlsaSeq
> first if this is your first Python/Midi project,
> despite there only being a few demos/tutorials for AlsaSeq, its a great way
> to get acces to the Alsa Sequencer.
>
> AlsaSeq also has a "Helper-Module", called alsamidi, which helps creating
> messages in a generic & easy way without
> getting your hands dirty in Midi bytes, commands & the likes. (it comes
> with the AlsaSeq tarball, so you'll get it automatically.)
>
> Cheers, -Harry
>


-- 
Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
* Musix GNU+Linux
  http://www.musix.es
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, David Robillard wrote:
> GPL crosses the plugin barrier if they live in the same address space
> and call each other / share data, etc:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

(That's the bit I meant by "convenient oversimplification", I don't
believe it's always the case at all)

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Gabriel M.
Beddingfield wrote:
> Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones
> making the violation.

Oh, that's an interesting thought.  It's presumably true only if
dynamically loading a library from your hard disc into an application
(as opposed to copying it onto your hard disc in the first place) is
an act that requires the permission of its copyright holder.  I know
that some shrink-wrap licenses take the view that loading a program is
effectively copying it, but it seems like a _really_ murky area to me.
 Not one that I'd ever really considered.  It doesn't seem all that
plausible, but do you think this view is widely accepted?


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:


If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a


No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.


My _user_?  That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.
Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",
implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of
that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which
is obviously absurd.



Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones 
making the violation.  You have to give special permission to do this:


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

Peace,
Gabriel

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[David Robillard]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:
> 
> > Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release 
> > their 
> > source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing (TM). I 
> > hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my GPL'd 
> > stuff 
> > (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd 
> > applications.
> 
> Two question arise:
> 
> - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
>   'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
>   version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
>   headers.

GPL crosses the plugin barrier if they live in the same address space
and call each other / share data, etc:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

However, you can add a license restriction to avoid this for a
particular interface (e.g. the LADSPA API):

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

Either way, the user can't "violate the GPL" just by loading a plugin
(since the GPL is a copyright license).  Distributing such a combination
in any way would, though.

Cheers,

-dr

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Python and MIDI orientation for a project

[Carlos Sanchiavedraz]

You're right Harry.

I succumbed to the temptation to reach to more people at the same time :).
I'm replying on LAD.

//On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes


2009/8/3, harryhaa...@gmail.com :
> Hey,
>
> Just to say, I think this is mainly related to Lin-Audio-Dev, so I wont be
> sending to lin-user in furthur replies..
>
> And on the topic for a second, python bindings exist for MidiDings, a
> module that can use both AlsaSeq & Jack Midi.
> I have a very limited amound of experince with it, as i found the AlsaSeq
> python package to be much simpler to use.
> (It does however not support Jack Midi.) Might i suggest to use AlsaSeq
> first if this is your first Python/Midi project,
> despite there only being a few demos/tutorials for AlsaSeq, its a great way
> to get acces to the Alsa Sequencer.
>
> AlsaSeq also has a "Helper-Module", called alsamidi, which helps creating
> messages in a generic & easy way without
> getting your hands dirty in Midi bytes, commands & the likes. (it comes
> with the AlsaSeq tarball, so you'll get it automatically.)
>
> Cheers, -Harry
>


-- 
Carlos "Sanchiavedraz"
* Musix GNU+Linux
  http://www.musix.es
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Ralf Mardorf]

Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.
>   

How can a user comply with the GPL or violate the GPL? A user is just 
using applications.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Gabriel M.
Beddingfield wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
>>
>> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
>> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
>> This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a
>
> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.

My _user_?  That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.
Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",
implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of
that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which
is obviously absurd.


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
>
> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
> This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a

No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.

Your users need special permission from you (the plug-in copyright holder) 
in order to link your GPL program against a closed-source program. 
Otherwise, it's your users who are making the violation.

For example, before Qt was GPL, the FSF issued a blanket permission and 
retroactive "amnesty" for all FSF programs that have been linked against 
the Qt toolkit.  They did this because they didn't see Qt as has having a 
compatible license... but people were linking GPL programs to it.

Peace,
Gabriel

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dr Nicholas J
Bailey wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
>>   'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
>>   version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
>>   headers.
>
> My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a separate
> process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be separate. But AFAIK,
> same memory space => derived work.

"Derived work" in the context of the GPL is entirely a question of
copyright.  If two works have been produced completely independently
-- for example if their authors produced them without being aware of
one another's existence at all -- then I don't think there could be
any basis for considering either of them a derived work of the other.
This could routinely be the case for a LADSPA plugin and host, for
example.

If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a
problem like this would surely have to consider the circumstances of
authorship: is it actually reasonable to describe program A as being
derived from program B, to the extent that the terms of program B's
license must be considered when redistributing program A?  That
consideration would surely vary hugely from case to case.


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Dr Nicholas J Bailey]

On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:
> > Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release
> > their source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing
> > (TM). I hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my
> > GPL'd stuff (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean
> > more GPL'd applications.
>
> Two question arise:
>
> - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
>   'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
>   version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
>   headers.

My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a separate  
process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be separate. But AFAIK, 
same memory space => derived work. 
>
> - If an installer (run on the end user's machine)
>   fetches the plugins from their official site, would
>   this be 'distribution' ?

Ummm... I vote no :)
>
>
> My first guess would be no, no.
>
>
> Ciao,

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Test app for LADSPA plugins

[David Robillard]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 12:59 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 23:16 +0300, Stefan Kost wrote:
> 
> > This testing is great stuff. It would be cool to have a buildbot
> > (http://buildbot.net) and run this regularly. Ideally test-tools would be 
> > part
> > of ladspa/lv2 sdk and the plugin-packages add running the test tools as 
> > part of
> > make check. Bonus points for rerunning tests on success under valgrind 
> > memcheck
> > once again.
> 
> Here's my latest test apps for LADSPA and LV2. I've ported most of the
> demolition tests over to both of them.
> 
> If people want to put them in the LADSPA/LV2 SDKs and add extra tests
> etc. that would be fine.

I'd be happy to include the LV2 one in SLV2 if you'd like and there's
nowhere better for it to go... (there's no LV2 SDK)

Cheers,

-dr


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Forest Bond wrote:
> If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point to the
> GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or something)?

No.  You can offer to provide the code only on request (section 3b),
but it has to be you who provides it.

The closest thing to an exception for this is section 3c which allows
non-commercial distributors to pass on the offer their received for
source if they received the code under 3b (the only place where GPLv2
distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial distribution).
But most free software is initially distributed under 3a rather than
3b, and that's what your question seems to imply as well.

This requirement is sometimes overlooked with unfortunate consequences
(c.f. the MEPIS distribution furore of a couple of years ago).

Note: assuming GPLv2 here.


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

Hi Forest,

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> Question:
>
> If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point 
> to the GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or 
> something)?

No.

The GPL sez (section 3):

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

In other words, wherever you are offering the binary for download, you 
need to offer the source code in the same place.

Peace,
Gabriel

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Forest Bond hat gesagt: // Forest Bond wrote:

> Question:
> 
> If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point to the
> GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or something)?

I don't think it's sufficient.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary says: 

  I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have 
to
  get the source and distribute that too?
  
  Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute
  the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where
  you received a written offer for source code is quite limited. 

So *you* have to distribute the source code just as you distribute the binary.
This is also in your own interest, because if the original site goes offline,
you are still required to give people source code.

Ciao
-- 
Frank
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Forest Bond]

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:43:34AM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
> 
> > Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about 
> > giving 
> > access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to 
> > make 
> > your changes available for free.
> 
> Huh? I think, you're confusing something here. Is it too early in the morning?
> ;)
> 
> Quoting GPL, v2 (which I think still applies to the GPL LADSPA plugins):
> 
>   You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under 
> Section
>   2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 
> above
>   provided that you also do one of the following:
>   
>   a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source 
> code,
>   which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a 
> medium
>   customarily used for software interchange; or, 
>   
>   b)  Accompany it with a written offer ... [to get the source somehow, Frank]
>   
>   c)  Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
>   distribute corresponding source code ... [only for non-commercial 
> distribution,
>   Frank].
> 
> So as soon as you *distribute* GPL software, modified or not, you *have* to 
> offer
> the source code, modified or not.

Question:

If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point to the
GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or something)?

Thanks,
Forest
-- 
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
http://www.pytagsfs.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>> I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many
>> years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not "infect" the host
>> with their licence.
>>
>> There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and
>> loadtime linking.
>
> D'oh. I think I'm confusing the LGPL and the GPL too.

You are, but dynamic linkage with the GPL is a complete minefield as
well, because it really hinges on what might be considered a derived
work in copyright terms rather than on the content of the GPL.  (The
FSF has a position that I think is a convenient oversimplification,
which is that any dynamic loading forms a derived work.  Others
disagree -- Linus for example with his binary kernel modules.  The GPL
does contain a line about applicability "when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program", but
it basically seems to be the license ruling itself on whether it
applies or not, and I don't think it's the only possible authority for
that -- if there is no derived work in pure copyright terms, then it
doesn't make any difference what the GPL says about derived works.)


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Steve Harris]

On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote:
> I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many
> years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not "infect" the host
> with their licence.
>
> There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and
> loadtime linking.

D'oh. I think I'm confusing the LGPL and the GPL too.

- Steve (will shut up now)
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Steve Harris]

On 4 Aug 2009, at 10:21, Chris Cannam wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknecht  
> wrote:
>> Hallo,
>> Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
>>
>>> Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk  
>>> about giving
>>> access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you  
>>> have to make
>>> your changes available for free.
>>
>> Huh? I think, you're confusing something here. Is it too early in  
>> the morning?
>
> Arnold's explanation is approximately true of the LGPL rather than the
> GPL, so perhaps that's the confusion here.  The LADSPA header is
> indeed under the LGPL, but the plugins in question are generally under
> the GPL -- so terms and conditions of our normal flamefests apply.

I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many  
years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not "infect" the host  
with their licence.

There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and  
loadtime linking.

- Steve
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Steve Harris]

On 4 Aug 2009, at 09:32, Arnold Krille wrote:
>
> Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk  
> about giving
> access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you  
> have to make
> your changes available for free.
> So if they just use the plugins without any modification, they don't  
> actually
> have to provide source codes. They just need to mention that they  
> provide
> plugins that are gpl.
> I don't even think that using gpl-ladspa-plugins makes their  
> software gpl
> because the linking happens at run-time (if at all). And if the  
> plugins are
> lgpl they can even link their closed-source stuff to them. But here  
> people with
> more knowledge should chime in.

That's a good point, it's my understanding too. They would not be  
required to put their app under the GPL. They do have to say where the  
source for the plugins can be obtained though.

- Steve
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Steve Harris]

On 4 Aug 2009, at 01:21, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
>
> In a case like this where multiple components are being distributed
> illegally it is probably worthwhile sending a single email undersigned
> by as many of the copyright holders as possible. When there are  
> multiple
> copyright holders at stake the guilty party must see that their  
> chances
> are so much worse.

Agreed.

If someone wants to draft such an email, I'll put my name to it. As  
someone who's copyright is being infringed.

- Steve
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Test app for LADSPA plugins

[Damon Chaplin]

On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 23:16 +0300, Stefan Kost wrote:

> This testing is great stuff. It would be cool to have a buildbot
> (http://buildbot.net) and run this regularly. Ideally test-tools would be part
> of ladspa/lv2 sdk and the plugin-packages add running the test tools as part 
> of
> make check. Bonus points for rerunning tests on success under valgrind 
> memcheck
> once again.

Here's my latest test apps for LADSPA and LV2. I've ported most of the
demolition tests over to both of them.

If people want to put them in the LADSPA/LV2 SDKs and add extra tests
etc. that would be fine.

Damon



test-lv2.c.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data


test-ladspa.c.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] students and copyright

[Ralf Mardorf]

David Robillard wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 20:49 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
>   
>> Actually the most free software development happens in a Do-cracy: The one 
>> who 
>> does the job (or the biggest part of it) gets to decide.
>> 
>
> and the rest complain on mailing lists :)

Please try to understand my commend about "Director" instead of "all 
coders" not one sided. I particularly wrote that it's not bad that Bob 
did it, please think about an issue like this one:

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
Date:   Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:21:38 +1000
From:   Erik de Castro Lopo 
Reply-To:   linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
Organization:   Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs
To: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
References: <4a7748bc.3060...@gmail.com>


One policy I took on very early in the development of libsndfile was
to actively encourage people, in as many geographical locations as
possible) to add their names to the copyright notices. This means that
if some in country X is violating the LGPL there is a reasonably good
chance that there is a copyright holder in that country.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] How well do thinkpad notebooks work for audio?

[Ralf Mardorf]

Ray Rashif wrote:
> Woohoo..I'm safe. Saffire Pro 10 working well.
>
> FireWire (IEEE 1394): Ricoh Co Ltd R5C832 IEEE 1394 Controller

Good news :). Dunno, but maybe BIOS versions and other issues might have 
an effect to this. If so, this might be interesting for 
http://subversion.ffado.org/wiki/HostControllers.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Arnold Krille]

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 11:21:34 Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > Hallo,
> >
> > Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
> >> Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about
> >> giving access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you
> >> have to make your changes available for free.
> > Huh? I think, you're confusing something here. Is it too early in the
> > morning?
> Arnold's explanation is approximately true of the LGPL rather than the
> GPL, so perhaps that's the confusion here.  The LADSPA header is
> indeed under the LGPL, but the plugins in question are generally under
> the GPL -- so terms and conditions of our normal flamefests apply.

Ah, okay. Mixed these two up in my head.
That the problem when your day-to-day-work uses LGPL for libs and GPL for 
apps...

Good to have peer-reviewers that are checking for wrong facts written before 
the first coffee. :-)

Arnold




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
>
>> Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about giving
>> access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to make
>> your changes available for free.
>
> Huh? I think, you're confusing something here. Is it too early in the morning?

Arnold's explanation is approximately true of the LGPL rather than the
GPL, so perhaps that's the confusion here.  The LADSPA header is
indeed under the LGPL, but the plugins in question are generally under
the GPL -- so terms and conditions of our normal flamefests apply.

(Probably best not to get sidetracked by the LGPL if we can help it,
considering how much time has been spent arguing about the much
simpler GPL lately...)


Chris
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:

> Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about giving 
> access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to make 
> your changes available for free.

Huh? I think, you're confusing something here. Is it too early in the morning?
;)

Quoting GPL, v2 (which I think still applies to the GPL LADSPA plugins):

  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section
  2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
  provided that you also do one of the following:
  
  a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code,
  which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a 
medium
  customarily used for software interchange; or, 
  
  b)  Accompany it with a written offer ... [to get the source somehow, Frank]
  
  c)  Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
  distribute corresponding source code ... [only for non-commercial 
distribution,
  Frank].

So as soon as you *distribute* GPL software, modified or not, you *have* to 
offer
the source code, modified or not.

Ciao
-- 
Frank
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Arnold Krille]

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 09:33:22 Nick Bailey wrote:
> On Monday 03 Aug 2009 21:29:48 Michael Fisher wrote:
> > No problem.  It's not really fair to put a 'skin' around free software,
> > call it your own, and then sell it.  The only thing I ask is that my
> > name be left out of the letter that may be written to them.  The reason
> > is, that I personally know one of the staff members at the Beat Kangz. I
> > just would hate to have it cause any trouble.  My friend personally
> > doesn't have anything to do with this violation, he just works for
> > them.  I hope that isn't a problem with you.
>
> Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release
> their source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing
> (TM). I hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my
> GPL'd stuff (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean
> more GPL'd applications.

Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about giving 
access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to make 
your changes available for free.
So if they just use the plugins without any modification, they don't actually 
have to provide source codes. They just need to mention that they provide 
plugins that are gpl.
I don't even think that using gpl-ladspa-plugins makes their software gpl 
because the linking happens at run-time (if at all). And if the plugins are 
lgpl they can even link their closed-source stuff to them. But here people with 
more knowledge should chime in.

Arnold


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:

> Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release their 
> source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing (TM). I 
> hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my GPL'd stuff 
> (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd 
> applications.

Two question arise:

- Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
  'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
  version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
  headers.

- If an installer (run on the end user's machine) 
  fetches the plugins from their official site, would
  this be 'distribution' ?


My first guess would be no, no.


Ciao,

-- 
FA

Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Nick Bailey]

On Monday 03 Aug 2009 21:29:48 Michael Fisher wrote:
> No problem.  It's not really fair to put a 'skin' around free software,
> call it your own, and then sell it.  The only thing I ask is that my
> name be left out of the letter that may be written to them.  The reason
> is, that I personally know one of the staff members at the Beat Kangz. I
> just would hate to have it cause any trouble.  My friend personally
> doesn't have anything to do with this violation, he just works for
> them.  I hope that isn't a problem with you.

Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release their 
source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing (TM). I 
hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my GPL'd stuff 
(which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd 
applications.

I hope they decide to use the GPL rather than reinvent the wheel. Let's hope 
Beat Kangz will see the light if the benefits are explained to them properly.

N/.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev