Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknechtf...@footils.org 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
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 11:21:34 Chris Cannam wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknechtf...@footils.org 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] How well do thinkpad notebooks work for audio?
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] students and copyright
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 mle...@mega-nerd.com 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] Test app for LADSPA plugins
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] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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
On 4 Aug 2009, at 10:21, Chris Cannam wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknechtf...@footils.org 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
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Steve Harrisst...@plugin.org.uk 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
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
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
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Forest Bondfor...@alittletooquiet.net 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] Test app for LADSPA plugins
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
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] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dr Nicholas J Baileyn.j.bai...@elec.gla.ac.uk 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
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Gabriel M. Beddingfieldgabr...@teuton.org 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 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] Python and MIDI orientation for a project
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 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
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] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, David Robillardd...@drobilla.net 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. Beddingfieldgabr...@teuton.org 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] Python and MIDI orientation for a project
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 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] Python and MIDI orientation for a project
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 hordia...@gmail.com: 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 Sanchiavedrazcsanche...@gmail.com 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 harryhaa...@gmail.com: 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 csanche...@gmail.comwrote: 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 csanche...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:18:17 +0200 Subject: Python and MIDI orientation for a project To: linux-audio-user linux-audio-u...@lists.linuxaudio.org 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] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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. opinionating_the_murk 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 /opinionating_the_murk Peace, Gabriel ___ 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
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
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
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today
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 mailto:ronaldjstew...@gmail.com www.indamixx.com http://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
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! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Arnold Krillearn...@arnoldarts.de 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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Sampo Savolainenv...@iki.fi 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! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today
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 Fishermfishe...@gmail.com 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 mailto:ronaldjstew...@gmail.com www.indamixx.com http://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
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! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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] [LAU] Python and MIDI orientation for a project
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
[LAD] A question for power HW experts
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] List archives
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
Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate
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] GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz Today
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] A question for power HW experts
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] Python and MIDI orientation for a project
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Carlos Sanchiavedrazcsanche...@gmail.com 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 hordia...@gmail.com: 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 Sanchiavedrazcsanche...@gmail.com 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 harryhaa...@gmail.com: 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 csanche...@gmail.comwrote: 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 csanche...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 19:18:17 +0200 Subject: Python and MIDI orientation for a project To: linux-audio-user linux-audio-u...@lists.linuxaudio.org 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 ___ 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
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] A question for power HW experts
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
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
