Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 00:44 +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > at the risk of starting another zillion-mail thread, Pamela Jones wrote that "You won't get shot at dawn for not understanding the GPL .." This needs fixing!!! ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
drew Roberts wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 20:34:37 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> because of a similar copyright law >> that someone from the list described and it seems to be the same for the >> USA and nearly every country, >> > > If I understood what I have read in the past correctly and am remembering it > correctly, the FSF folks claim that in the US there is no contract involved, > there is just a pure license of copyright play. Also, iirc, this is important > to them as contracts are dealt with in state courts and injunctions would not > be available whereas copyright licensing is dealt with in federal courts and > injunctions are obtainable. Yes and because of the copyright laws it seems to be, that e.g. in Germany and by federal US courts the GPL is legal force, because of the copyright holders, who are the people who make code GPL'd. In Germany there isn't the need even to add a "copyright" to the code or application. Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
On Thursday 06 August 2009 20:34:37 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > because of a similar copyright law > that someone from the list described and it seems to be the same for the > USA and nearly every country, If I understood what I have read in the past correctly and am remembering it correctly, the FSF folks claim that in the US there is no contract involved, there is just a pure license of copyright play. Also, iirc, this is important to them as contracts are dealt with in state courts and injunctions would not be available whereas copyright licensing is dealt with in federal courts and injunctions are obtainable. Open to correction and clarification by people in a postion to do so. all the best, drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] Running pulseaudio with jack
Hi, For those of you who are not subscribed to LAU, yesterday I had time to run a test to see how easy and stable it was to run pulseaudio with jack on Fedora 11. I had a few problems at first but after upgrading to pulseaudio-0.9.16 (latest dev version) I was able to successfully connect Pulseaudio to Jack and play tracks with Totem. It was still a little unstable as I was able to bring pulse down a few times while using the gnome-volume-control applet. However jack was not affected by pulse dying. I did this on a standard Fedora kernel with a 2 core intel and 4 GB RAM. My system load without any audio playing it was around 10%. While playing a track with Totem through PA into Jack was around 20%. This could be due to the visuals that were running at the same time. I was able to listen to a complete 30 minute dj mix without any dropouts while still using my system as usual. I am going to run a full day test of audio playback today. I hope that this has conclusively proven that pulseaudio and jack can exist together and that we are very close to having a complete desktop solution. I don't think any distros are currently shipping pulseaudio-0.9.16 but they will in the next release cycle. IMO all that is needed to complete the system is a sane default configuration which we can all agree on and officially recommend to the packagers. - We have now have a couple of scripts on the net that can be used to load module-null-sink/source to PA, starts jack and then load module-jack-sink/source to PA. These can be added to qjackctl easily but not system wide as several video apps have hooks to load jack if it is not already running. I am doing this now as it is the quickest solution. - The dbus method for jack2 is also useful if it can be given the above logic instead of or aswell as the current which is to disable PA while jack is running. - Another option is that PA listens for jack and handles the sink/source loading internally and automatically. - The final option I can see is a seperate app that can replace jackd, that loads the null sink/source, starts the real jackd and then loads the jack-sink/source. It would also have to take care of the reverse when jack is stopped. I think it would be good if we can get some consensus on the officially endorsed approach. Cheers. -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
PS: > Paul Davis wrote: >> 2009/8/6 Ralf Mardorf : >> >>> Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: >>> [snip] all this means that if somebody uses GPL'd code without releasing under GPL him/herself, s/he is in breach of contract with the original author(s). it *does* *not* *mean* that you can now assume the entire package is up for grabs under the terms of the GPL. >>> IANAL, but with a certainty of 99,9% this is the actual state of >>> affairs >>> how German courts does accept/fit the GPL to the German law and it >>> seems >>> to be the same for the Netherlands, >>> >> >> citations? references? google fu magic? >> > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License > http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ The context for the Netherlands is, you need to quote correctly: > and it seems to be the same for the Netherlands, because of a similar > copyright law that someone from the list described ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
Paul Davis wrote: > 2009/8/6 Ralf Mardorf : > >> Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: >> >>> [snip] >>> >>> all this means that if somebody uses GPL'd code without releasing under >>> GPL him/herself, s/he is in breach of contract with the original >>> author(s). it *does* *not* *mean* that you can now assume the entire >>> package is up for grabs under the terms of the GPL. >>> >> IANAL, but with a certainty of 99,9% this is the actual state of affairs >> how German courts does accept/fit the GPL to the German law and it seems >> to be the same for the Netherlands, >> > > citations? references? google fu magic? > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Maybe he just replied to another mail and wanted to point out some problems > that are the cause, that there are so less people using Linux real-time > audio. I guess a developers list isn't a bad place to do it. > I don't have the impression that he wanted to attack you ;). The developers on this list are already perfectly aware of the issues. Repeating them ad nauseam doesn't help solve them. >>> I spent 5 hours last week to help somebody to get his (pro) audio >>> working on Linux... He says to his girlfriend, you better spend a 1000 >>> euro's for such a white macbook, then things just work... >>> >> >> unless of course you need to use an aggregate device and inadvertently >> use an app that resets the sample rate and you lose one "side" of the >> device (playback or capture). or maybe you just use a mac mini with >> the defaults and notice totally crappy sound quality (clicks and ticks >> everywhere) that don't go away until you buy a new audio interface or >> reboot regularly. or you run the OS X update utility and the new wifi >> drivers kill audio latency. or you already have a firewire interface >> and you forget to notice that the macbook you just bought doesn't have >> firewire anymore. etc. etc. etc. >> > > Why do you make this noise? To illustrate that the often repeated claim that "things just work (on OS X)" isn't actually trie. >>> I don't know if I can really recommend Linux for pro audio to normal >>> human beings... at least I should say, you need a lot of time, not easy >>> give up on things and a lot of patience... >>> >> >> then get off this list and leave us to our playthings. or better yet, >> spend time critiquing the current state of the "out of the box" >> experience with the people who **actually provide** the out of the >> box experience. >> > > Why do you make this noise? because i am sick and tired of people complaining to *developers* about the out-of-box experience when this is something that we do not control. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
2009/8/6 Ralf Mardorf : > Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: >> [snip] >> >> all this means that if somebody uses GPL'd code without releasing under >> GPL him/herself, s/he is in breach of contract with the original >> author(s). it *does* *not* *mean* that you can now assume the entire >> package is up for grabs under the terms of the GPL. > > IANAL, but with a certainty of 99,9% this is the actual state of affairs > how German courts does accept/fit the GPL to the German law and it seems > to be the same for the Netherlands, citations? references? google fu magic? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > [snip] > > all this means that if somebody uses GPL'd code without releasing under > GPL him/herself, s/he is in breach of contract with the original > author(s). it *does* *not* *mean* that you can now assume the entire > package is up for grabs under the terms of the GPL. IANAL, but with a certainty of 99,9% this is the actual state of affairs how German courts does accept/fit the GPL to the German law and it seems to be the same for the Netherlands, because of a similar copyright law that someone from the list described and it seems to be the same for the USA and nearly every country, if I didn't misunderstood clarifications on English. First I thought that some issues might differ, but now I completely agree. This is how clarifications on German and English "translate" the legal terminology of the GPL. Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] how i think the gpl works under german jurisdiction
standard ianal disclaimer applies. at the risk of starting another zillion-mail thread, here's how i understand the gpl to work under german laws (which should be almost the same in most other countries): a) there is a difference between the license and the copyright. what many people fail to grasp is that the original copyright holder (if it's actually a single person or closed group) is not bound by the license - s/he can choose to distribute the product under any terms s/he sees fit. the license applies only to people re-distributing the product. so it does not make sense to accuse an original author of not providing makefiles, scripts etc, for original code. specifically so in the light of the famous "AS-IS", "WITHOUT FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE" paragraph. ripping out makefiles from re-distributed code is another issue. b) there is a difference between license and evangelist lingo and the actual *contract* that is agreed upon by licensor and licensee. the GPL cannot be viral in the sense that any code that incorporates GPL automatically becomes GPL as well. what happens instead is this: * you use GPL code in your product so as to make your product a "derived work". * by including the GPL code, you are accepting the GPL (as stated in the license). the original author has issued a standing offer for a contract (the GPL), and your use of the code indicates your acceptance. thus, a contract is formed between the original author of that code and yourself (through "konkludentes handeln" or "implied agreement by action" in german legalese, no signing of papers or verbal exchange needed here). * you fail to comply with the GPL by not releasing your product under the same terms. * this means you are violating the license of the included GPL code and are re-distributing the included GPL code without permission. so this is a *breach of contract*, and anything that follows is about the original author's copyright, not your own, or how you license your code. you are now liable to a copyright infringement suit, a cease and desist and possible damages. from this point on, there are two ways to remedy the situation: * you can stick to the original contract and comply with the GPL in the future. since this happens to mean your code has to become GPL as well, it is what causes the myth of the "viral" GPL. * you can rip out the GPL code and continue to use your old licensing terms (after you have settled the infringement suit). all this means that if somebody uses GPL'd code without releasing under GPL him/herself, s/he is in breach of contract with the original author(s). it *does* *not* *mean* that you can now assume the entire package is up for grabs under the terms of the GPL. best, jörn ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
> What we're looking for is less completely irrelevant noise like this. > Particularly in response to jokes (blatant smileys and all). > > Honestly... There's a difference between scorn and joke. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 23:47 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> entrance examination? :) > >> > > I subscribed to the list, because I needed some information when I tried > to program for Linux audio. I guess you want people to learn how to > program for Linux audio. What you're looking for is an attitude test, > not a test about programming knowledge. [snip several more paragraphs of blaaah blaaah blaah] What we're looking for is less completely irrelevant noise like this. Particularly in response to jokes (blatant smileys and all). Honestly... -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
Chris Cannam wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > >> What possible counter-argument can there be left? >> > > http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining > why you're wrong) > > > Chris "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong." Aha, so it's not allowed to take this proprietary code and make it open source, but a court is allowed to prohibit the copyright holders to distribute their proprietary code as long it includes GPL'd code, while they don't stick to the GPL. For Bob and Raymond this means. At the time, when Bob distributed his binary application without the source code, a court could have forbidden him to do so and Raymond wasn't allowed to open the source of Bob's application, even while Bob violated against the GPL. But now Bob and Raymond are both right ;), because Bob opens the source code :)?! Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
Raymond Martin wrote: > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote: > > > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: > > > > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not > > > > > > clear. > > > > > > > > > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL > *if* they > > > > > don't claim their own code to be GPL. > > > > > > > > > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed > to be > > > > > GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to > > > > > it, not because it contained another author's GPL code. > > > > > > > > > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another > > > > > author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the > second > > > > > option is available to the first author and the courts will have to > > > > > sort it. > > > > > > > > The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code > and it > > > > still can be put out under another license by the original author. > So you > > > > are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be > > > > considered. > > > > > > > > It was understood about an original authors copyrights. > Nonetheless, any > > > > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL > > > > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another > > > > license. > > > > > > > > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come > under > > > > GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the > > > > GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the > > > > original which must be distributed under the same license. > > > > > > > > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). > Read > > > > the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or > > > > any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this > > > > License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, > > > > distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it. > > > > > > > > End of story. > > > > > > Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me > > > here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes > > > but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not > accept it > > > and break the law instead. > > > > > > Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since > copyright law > > > has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the > > > issue accordingly. > > > > > > > Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the > > > > code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by > their own > > > > actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come > into > > > > effect. > > > > > > Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your > code. It > > > is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The > law does > > > not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The > author must > > > GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the > > > original license. > > > > > > > If they want to distribute their original code under a different > license > > > > that can also be done. > > Eben Moglen in http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html > > "Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's > substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that > the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the > GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it. > > This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not > require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, > inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those > activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software > firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual > provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their > works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are > rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover > those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software > from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only > obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only > needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one > can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that > anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After > all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the > license text, so everyone is fully informed." > > Check that line near
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
>> entrance examination? :) >> I subscribed to the list, because I needed some information when I tried to program for Linux audio. I guess you want people to learn how to program for Linux audio. What you're looking for is an attitude test, not a test about programming knowledge. I've got knowledge about programming, not about programming for Linux. You don't like my attitude, but I hope you like other people who have the attitude that you want, even if they don't have programming knowledge. (This is another issue, but not that one OS might or might not be good, better or what ever, so I guess I should reply :p) Should all people have the same attitude? Especially should all artist have the same attitude? :D Btw. on user lists a user don't get some needed information, e.g. actually about what kernel is fine with rtirq and what kernel isn't fine with it, so it can become impossible to set up an audio Linux, another reason why I'm subscribed to this list. I'm and other users are responsible for my/their Linux installations, we should use all available sources to get knowledge. Some, me too, do so. In addition now you expect from users that they also should have the same attitude? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] rtirq script is broken with 2.6.31
Robin Gareus wrote:
> Hi Rui et al,
>
> I just found that recent kernel development (merging IRQ threads into
> mainline) breaks the "rtirq" setup script. Basically rtirq does nothing.
>
> The command to get the PID
> PIDS=`ps -eo pid,comm | egrep "IRQ.${IRQ}\$" | awk '{print $1}'`
> (rtirq line 120) does no longer work since the IRQ process names have
> changed.
>
> I've quickly changed it to
> PIDS=`ps -eo pid,comm | egrep "irq\/${IRQ}-" | awk '{print $1}'`
> and it sets the priorities again, but that's not correct since it also
> raises priority of other drivers on the same IRQ..
>
> Similarly `rtirq status` returns nothing. I've checked with:
> `ps -ewo pid,class,rtprio,ni,pri,pcpu,stat,comm --sort -rtprio`
> instead.
>
> It looks like a new set of regexps for rtirq is in order ;)
>
of course. it happens all the time the rt-preempt devs make their way it
happened before it will happen again. world is turning :)
this issue on 2.6.31-rt has been already reported privately and i'll get
to it as soon i get back home from vacation. meanwhile, it really looks
like a regex trickery is all that's needed, keeping in mind that
backward compability with pre-2.6.31-rt kernels is in order (eg. i do
still run on 2.56.29.5-rt22 for which the current rtirq script is
perfect, of course)
as a quick suggestion, try this for instance (re. line 120):
PIDS=`ps -eo pid,comm | egrep "(IRQ.${IRQ}|irq\/${IRQ}\-.+)\$" | awk
'{print $1}'`
>
> This is
> Linux soyuz 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1 #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Wed Aug 5 23:06:21 CEST
> 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
>
> # ps -eo pid,comm | grep -i irq
> 4 sirq-high/0
> 5 sirq-timer/0
> 6 sirq-net-tx/0
> 7 sirq-net-rx/0
> 8 sirq-block/0
> 9 sirq-tasklet/0
>10 sirq-sched/0
>11 sirq-hrtimer/0
>12 sirq-rcu/0
> 149 irq/9-acpi
> 495 irq/14-ata_piix
> 496 irq/15-ata_piix
> 506 irq/16-yenta
> 526 irq/12-i8042
> 527 irq/1-i8042
> 1418 irq/8-rtc0
> 1428 irq/19-ehci_hcd
> 1446 irq/16-uhci_hcd
> 1447 irq/17-uhci_hcd
> 1450 irq/18-uhci_hcd
> 1452 irq/19-uhci_hcd
> 1544 irq/29-iwl3945
> 22591 sirq-high/1
> 22592 sirq-timer/1
> 22593 sirq-net-tx/1
> 22594 sirq-net-rx/1
> 22595 sirq-block/1
> 22596 sirq-tasklet/1
> 22597 sirq-sched/1
> 22598 sirq-hrtimer/1
> 22599 sirq-rcu/1
> 22609 irq/17-HDA Inte
> 22610 irq/17-ohci1394
> 22952 irq/16-i...@pci
> 22968 irq/28-eth1
>
> Yes I'm also baffled at the high PIDs for IRQs. I hazard a guess that
> those are a result of a suspend/resume cycle; and I'll check later if
> the chrt settings do persist after a suspend/resume.
>
> so long,
> robin
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rn...@rncbc.org
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > What possible counter-argument can there be left? http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining why you're wrong) Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
>> Hehe... does mailman support an entrance examination? :) > > i guess majordomo is what you're looking for :-D > Aka the Butler... Jeeves ;) Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's August. V ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 14:46:18 Raymond Martin wrote: > What possible counter-argument can there be left? You didn't read the GPL? You didn't understand it? You thought the GPL was like the BSD? Make some up. I do get you point. Just don't agree yet. But I don't think it is worth it at this point to go back and forth too much more. What might be worth it, and what I will try and write up is some simple questions that cover these issues that can be put to the folks at the FSF and see what their take is. > > Raymond all the best, drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
David Robillard wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 15:03 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> Pardon, my English is broken. >> Which reminds me: >> >> * What is your favourite programming language? >> * What kind of Linux Audio project are you currently spending time upon? > > Hehe... does mailman support an entrance examination? :) i guess majordomo is what you're looking for :-D ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:06:01 drew Roberts wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote: > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: > > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: > > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not > > > > clear. > > > > > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they > > > don't claim their own code to be GPL. > > > > > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be > > > GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to > > > it, not because it contained another author's GPL code. > > > > > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another > > > author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second > > > option is available to the first author and the courts will have to > > > sort it. > > > > The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it > > still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you > > are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be > > considered. > > > > It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any > > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL > > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another > > license. > > > > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under > > GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the > > GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the > > original which must be distributed under the same license. > > > > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read > > the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or > > any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this > > License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, > > distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it. > > > > End of story. > > Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me > here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes > but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not accept it > and break the law instead. > > Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since copyright law > has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the > issue accordingly. > > > Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the > > code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own > > actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into > > effect. > > Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your code. It > is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The law does > not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The author must > GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the > original license. > > > If they want to distribute their original code under a different license > > that can also be done. Eben Moglen in http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html "Because there's nothing complex or controversial about the license's substantive provisions, I have never even seen a serious argument that the GPL exceeds a licensor's powers. But it is sometimes said that the GPL can't be enforced because users haven't ``accepted'' it. This claim is based on a misunderstanding. The license does not require anyone to accept it in order to acquire, install, use, inspect, or even experimentally modify GPL'd software. All of those activities are either forbidden or controlled by proprietary software firms, so they require you to accept a license, including contractual provisions outside the reach of copyright, before you can use their works. The free software movement thinks all those activities are rights, which all users ought to have; we don't even want to cover those activities by license. Almost everyone who uses GPL'd software from day to day needs no license, and accepts none. The GPL only obliges you if you distribute software made from GPL'd code, and only needs to be accepted when redistribution occurs. And because no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL. After all, the GPL requires each copy of covered software to include the license text, so everyone is fully informed." Check that line near the end: "no one can ever redistribute without a license, we can safely presume that anyone redistributing GPL'd software intended to accept the GPL". Now this is a lawyer for free software saying almost exactly what I have. The assumption is that if you distribute the software then you are intending to accept the license by doing so. Thus the license applies even if
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:05:17 Raymond Martin wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not > > > clear. > > > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they > > don't claim their own code to be GPL. > > > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be > > GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to it, > > not because it contained another author's GPL code. > > > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another author's > > GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second option is > > available to the first author and the courts will have to sort it. > > The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it > still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you > are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be > considered. > > It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another > license. > > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under > GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the GPL > into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the original > which must be distributed under the same license. > > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read the > sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or any work > based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do > so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or > modifying the Program or works based on it. > > End of story. Nope, sorry, I get your theory but disagree. (I think RMS agrees with me here as I pointed to in another post.) The license can say what it likes but the license is not the law. One can ignore the license, not accept it and break the law instead. Then the author of the included code has a legal remedy since copyright law has been broken.. They can go to court and the courts will deal with the issue accordingly. > Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the > code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own > actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into > effect. Only if you don't intend to break copyright law must you GPL your code. It is not something that the GPL can accomplish in and of itself. The law does not give the license that power to my understanding of it. The author must GPL the combined code, the original is obviously still GPL as per the original license. > > If they want to distribute their original code under a different license > that can also be done. > > Raymond all the best, drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 15:03 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > Pardon, my English is broken. > > Which reminds me: > > * What is your favourite programming language? > * What kind of Linux Audio project are you currently spending time upon? Hehe... does mailman support an entrance examination? :) -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:43 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Paul Davis wrote: > > 2009/8/5 Grammostola Rosea : > > Maybe Kim is precisely representative of the sort of the user LAD-ers > > are interested in. Maybe not. What purpose does your email serve? Do > > you think that anyone on this list is not ACUTELY aware of the > > situation you are describing? > > This is why I know so many people who never ever will use Linux, because > of noise like yours Paul. (Apologies in advance for speaking on behalf of another and using the generic "we", but:) Paul's point is that whining about the problem - the problem we are all very much aware of - is not productive in any way. People doing this have completely derailed this potentially useful conversation (useful as in discussing of solutions) entirely, not Paul's message. I'll try again: WE KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE. We also know that it's "not that bad" once you set it up, or whatever. Hello? This is linux-audio-dev. We know. Keep the generic whining about obvious things (or defending things in response to such) on LAU where it belongs, please. -dr P.S. In general there is far too much user whining and wars going on in here lately. Can we have linux-audio-DEV back, please? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] rtirq script is broken with 2.6.31
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Rui et al,
I just found that recent kernel development (merging IRQ threads into
mainline) breaks the "rtirq" setup script. Basically rtirq does nothing.
The command to get the PID
PIDS=`ps -eo pid,comm | egrep "IRQ.${IRQ}\$" | awk '{print $1}'`
(rtirq line 120) does no longer work since the IRQ process names have
changed.
I've quickly changed it to
PIDS=`ps -eo pid,comm | egrep "irq\/${IRQ}-" | awk '{print $1}'`
and it sets the priorities again, but that's not correct since it also
raises priority of other drivers on the same IRQ..
Similarly `rtirq status` returns nothing. I've checked with:
`ps -ewo pid,class,rtprio,ni,pri,pcpu,stat,comm --sort -rtprio`
instead.
It looks like a new set of regexps for rtirq is in order ;)
This is
Linux soyuz 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1 #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Wed Aug 5 23:06:21 CEST
2009 i686 GNU/Linux
# ps -eo pid,comm | grep -i irq
4 sirq-high/0
5 sirq-timer/0
6 sirq-net-tx/0
7 sirq-net-rx/0
8 sirq-block/0
9 sirq-tasklet/0
10 sirq-sched/0
11 sirq-hrtimer/0
12 sirq-rcu/0
149 irq/9-acpi
495 irq/14-ata_piix
496 irq/15-ata_piix
506 irq/16-yenta
526 irq/12-i8042
527 irq/1-i8042
1418 irq/8-rtc0
1428 irq/19-ehci_hcd
1446 irq/16-uhci_hcd
1447 irq/17-uhci_hcd
1450 irq/18-uhci_hcd
1452 irq/19-uhci_hcd
1544 irq/29-iwl3945
22591 sirq-high/1
22592 sirq-timer/1
22593 sirq-net-tx/1
22594 sirq-net-rx/1
22595 sirq-block/1
22596 sirq-tasklet/1
22597 sirq-sched/1
22598 sirq-hrtimer/1
22599 sirq-rcu/1
22609 irq/17-HDA Inte
22610 irq/17-ohci1394
22952 irq/16-i...@pci
22968 irq/28-eth1
Yes I'm also baffled at the high PIDs for IRQs. I hazard a guess that
those are a result of a suspend/resume cycle; and I'll check later if
the chrt settings do persist after a suspend/resume.
so long,
robin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkp7AfMACgkQeVUk8U+VK0LBZACfUeRxyGBf5rpmMvlurTFxKRis
zk0An2QFd07wyg5wHRZXY0MJjD9dESnv
=JLI3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 14:07 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On 08/06/2009 03:16 AM, David Robillard wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 21:53 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: > > > > > >From TFA: > > > > > > --8<-- > > > Go to System->Preferences->Sound, click on the Devices tab, and check > > > out the pulldown menu next to ‘Sound Events’ at the top of the panel. > > > You will see various acronyms, possibly including cryptic-looking > > > technologies like OSS, ESD, ALSA, JACK, and Pulse Audio. These acronyms > > > represent a byzantine tangle of conflicting technologies that over time, > > > and due to political reasons or backwards compatibility, have ended up > > > cohabiting with one another. ‘Frankenstein’ might be an accurate > > > metaphor here. > > > > > > > > > Thankfully, there is a simpler way, which is the combination of ALSA [a > > > high-performance, kernel-level audio and MIDI system] and JACK [a system > > > for creating low-latency audio, MIDI, and sync connections between > > > applications and computers]. The battle-scarred among us have learned to > > > ignore all the other audio cruft bolted on to Ubuntu and just use ALSA > > > and JACK. One can think of the ALSA/JACK stack, the heart of most pro > > > Linux studios, as the Core Audio of Linux and in my opinion Jack should > > > be the first thing installed on any musicians laptop. I’d go so far as > > > to suggest placing it in the Startup Applications so it’s always > > > running. > > > ---8<-- > > > > > > > IMO without a ton of effort Jack could, and should, be turned into a > > viable default installation audio system (or the bottom layer of such a > > system, at least). The desktop guys certainly aren't ever going to get > > it right. > > > > The above problem is a very real one as far as people's perception of > > GNU/Linux as an audio system. What a mess. We can do better. > > > > > > AFAICT it's like 95% there already as far as the average user is > concerned. So the desktop guys you are referring to have got it and > are way ahead of anyone else in this respect. > > Pulse is ubiquitous now. Jack was never intended to be the default > audio system for desktop use. Pulse is also entirely useless for 'serious' audio use, making it not a good audio system in general. It solves the desktop apps that go bonk problem, no more. The latency is terrible, no patching, AFAIK no MIDI involved whatsoever, daemon overhead without the potential advantages thereof (synchronous, ala jack), etc. > Let's just fix the interaction between pulse and jack and be done with > it. That is one solution. > It's harmful to suggest that it things are less than they are Read the user posts in this thread, or ths post that started it. Things are as they are. Pretending everything is fantastic when it's not doesn't help either. Things are definitely not "fantastic" until a noob can run e.g. hydrogen, run ardour, then record some things with a few clicks in their cute little desktop menu. Most users don't go through the tedious process of "setting up" everything, then writing blog posts, etc. etc. They take one look, then decide "linux sucks for music", and go back to Win/OSX. This is currently a big, real problem - not an exaggeration on my part. Neither pulse or jack solve the "THE audio system" problem, and they don't work well together. -dr ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
Hallo, Raymond Martin hat gesagt: // Raymond Martin wrote: > What you wrote there is essentially meaningless. The GPL is worthless and > has no force according to that. All the power is outside of it and it carries > no weight. I guess that is why the FSF just won a court case against Cisco > for GPL violations. Make sense. The Cisco case was resolved out of court: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html Anyway the FSF never went out and released source code written by some company in violation of the GPL on their own. Why? Because that code, while licensed incorrectly, still has that company's copyright written all over. (It would probably still have it even when the code would be GPL'd correctly.) This is *the* central problem here: The company didn't give a correct license to distribute their code (i.e. they didn't use the GPL as required). Without such a license copying that code would violate the company's copyright. And two wrongs don't make a right. That's why the FSF and gpl-violation.org go to court to force the company to fix that issue, instead of releasing that code on their own. Ciao -- Frank ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On 6 Aug 2009, at 15:05, Raymond Martin wrote: > > An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come > under GPL, > the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the > GPL into > force. The combining is considered a modified version of the > original which > must be distributed under the same license. > > See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). > Read the > sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or > any work > based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License > to do so, > and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or > modifying > the Program or works based on it. > > End of story. Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically > puts the code > under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own > actions. > Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into effect. No. Because the GPL is (IANAL, but most of them seem to think) a license not a contract. The distributing party is VIOLATING the GPL by their own actions. Here's Eben Moglen on the subject: "There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and—where appropriate— attorneys’ fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL-licensed code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That’s a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL- licensed program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits." ~ Simon ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:37:49 you wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > >> > Nonetheless, any > >> > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL > >> > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another > >> > license. > >> > >> This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than mere > >> misunderstandings about what is actually in the GPL. The fact that > >> you persist in it despite having had it explained to you several times > >> shows a serious and potentially dangerous misconception about > >> copyright, not just about the details of a particular license. I very > >> much hope there are not many more people out there who share this > >> misconception. > > > > That's funny because it is exactly what I think about your refusal to > > understand what is written in plain language in the GPL itself. > > *sigh* > > The answer is not, and cannot be, in the GPL. If you don't understand > why the answer cannot be in the GPL, then you need to think about the > problem more seriously. What you wrote there is essentially meaningless. The GPL is worthless and has no force according to that. All the power is outside of it and it carries no weight. I guess that is why the FSF just won a court case against Cisco for GPL violations. Make sense. > > Now, enough. I am not interested in a discussion with you; I'm > replying only because I don't want to leave the impression in the > archive that this nonsense went uncontested. Not that there's much > chance of that, given the number of people who have tried to correct > you. Even funnier. You are just proving that you cannot provide any evidence to contradict the GPL. Provide proof of your claims. The GPL gives proof of what I claim. You have nothing, thus you resort to silly claims. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] interesting lwn coverage about latest rt patches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > hi guys! > > lwn.net has a very nice article on the progress of -rt in the latest .31 > kernel: > > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/345076/aab59b866d6f169d/ > > (this is otherwise subscribers-only coverage, brought to you by the > "free link" feature - if you have some bucks to spare, check out lwn and > consider subscribing, their s/n is quite exceptional.) Thank you very much for this link. It's a good read, even though "old news" for rt-linux subscribers ;) cheers, robin > best, > > jörn > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkp67hoACgkQeVUk8U+VK0J8mwCdEQ15RMcYTFAFYDm6OiEevZTI LlUAn10y1AyPsBh3kJwEFxU+mmIJ3X8K =WIip -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
Raymond Martin wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:59:39 Chris Cannam wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Roberts wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote: >>> The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket "use of GPL code makes it GPL" (which would imply the second question above). >>> And this I certainly agree with. Use of GPL code does not automatically >>> make another program GPL. It just gives the author of that code a legal >>> headache if the new program is not GPL. >>> >> Yes, exactly. >> > > Pure BS. People who cannot read the GPL properly. > > Raymond Seems to depend of the interpretation what "usage" does mean. I will indicate to the issue about LADSPA used by Non-GPL software. Use of GPL code included to another program makes this other program automatically GPL'd. I guess this is one of the subjects that is easy to understand for people that aren't lawyers and even with broken English. I'm off-line now. Bye, Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: >> > Nonetheless, any >> > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL >> > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another >> > license. >> >> This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than mere >> misunderstandings about what is actually in the GPL. The fact that >> you persist in it despite having had it explained to you several times >> shows a serious and potentially dangerous misconception about >> copyright, not just about the details of a particular license. I very >> much hope there are not many more people out there who share this >> misconception. > > That's funny because it is exactly what I think about your refusal to > understand what is written in plain language in the GPL itself. *sigh* The answer is not, and cannot be, in the GPL. If you don't understand why the answer cannot be in the GPL, then you need to think about the problem more seriously. Now, enough. I am not interested in a discussion with you; I'm replying only because I don't want to leave the impression in the archive that this nonsense went uncontested. Not that there's much chance of that, given the number of people who have tried to correct you. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:16:34 you wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > > Nonetheless, any > > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL > > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another > > license. > > This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than mere > misunderstandings about what is actually in the GPL. The fact that > you persist in it despite having had it explained to you several times > shows a serious and potentially dangerous misconception about > copyright, not just about the details of a particular license. I very > much hope there are not many more people out there who share this > misconception. That's funny because it is exactly what I think about your refusal to understand what is written in plain language in the GPL itself. Show me where you get your ideas. I can show you that mine come from the writing of the license. Plus, you definitely have taken one sentence and singled it out here. That is called cherry picking, taking an idea out of context to suit your own purposes. Thus it is people like you who continue to deny the actual language of the license that make it a constant chore to explain it repeatedly. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 09:59:39 Chris Cannam wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Roberts wrote: > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote: > >> The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are > >> prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor > >> code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket "use of > >> GPL code makes it GPL" (which would imply the second question above). > > > > And this I certainly agree with. Use of GPL code does not automatically > > make another program GPL. It just gives the author of that code a legal > > headache if the new program is not GPL. > > Yes, exactly. Pure BS. People who cannot read the GPL properly. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Jens M Andreasen wrote: >> This is really my last reply to this topic, ... >> > > Thanks! Sorry, it wasn't ;). because I haven't seen one mail and because I love the MC68000 processor. But I'll shut up now :), for this topic. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Hi Alex :) I'll take the next bus and will reply to this mail only because of the 68000 issue. alex stone wrote: > [snip] > I owned several variations of boxes including > an Amiga (best midi timing on the planet), and my much cherished but > now dead Fairlight. > I started with the C64 and then used the Atari ST (not STe, not TT etc.). I don't know the Amiga, but the Fairlight. Amiga, Atari ST and Fairlight are based on the 68000. As I've written before, I won't argue for an OSS, I don't use privately and I've explained that there are cracks that do, what I've said. I stopped replying to this topic. The C64 and Atari ST don't have any noticeable jitter, I still have those computers, but reasons not to use them any more. Linux with my machine is a PITA for usage with external MIDI equipment. I don't know if this is fine for Windows on my machine, in January I installed Windows and some audio software, but until now I didn't test if I do have jitter with Windows too, I only tried to fix it for my Linux installs. But I was writing because of the averaged user, not because of my trouble. 64 Studio is the only good working alternative I know, other audio distros don't take care about special problems, e.g. that some systems will disconnect clients when using JACK1, for 64 Studio JACK2 is default. I'm able to configure my Suse etc. for rt-audio, an averaged user isn't able to do this. Maybe to be continued, better if not and I'm half off-line now ;). Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 15:33 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > I never programmed anything for Linux. I'm not able to do it and I don't > have the time to learn it. > > This is really my last reply to this topic, ... Thanks! ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Raymond Martin wrote: > Nonetheless, any > code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL > regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license. This is quite wrong and, frankly, far more scarily so than mere misunderstandings about what is actually in the GPL. The fact that you persist in it despite having had it explained to you several times shows a serious and potentially dangerous misconception about copyright, not just about the details of a particular license. I very much hope there are not many more people out there who share this misconception. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:23 PM, drew Roberts wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 03:51:30 you wrote: >> The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are >> prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor >> code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket "use of >> GPL code makes it GPL" (which would imply the second question above). > > And this I certainly agree with. Use of GPL code does not automatically make > another program GPL. It just gives the author of that code a legal headache > if the new program is not GPL. Yes, exactly. Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thursday 06 August 2009 08:59:31 drew Roberts wrote: > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: > > > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. > > No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they > don't claim their own code to be GPL. > > In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be GPL > which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to it, not > because it contained another author's GPL code. > > Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another author's > GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second option is > available to the first author and the courts will have to sort it. The code is GPL once you distribute it mixed with other GPL code and it still can be put out under another license by the original author. So you are splitting hairs where the context of the discussion needs to be considered. It was understood about an original authors copyrights. Nonetheless, any code mixed with GPL code and distributed automatically becomes GPL regardless of any other distribution of the same code under another license. An author does not have to give the code a license for it to come under GPL, the act of combining it with GPL code and distributing brings the GPL into force. The combining is considered a modified version of the original which must be distributed under the same license. See section A.2, subsection 5 of the GPL (version 2 in this case). Read the sentence "Therefore, by modifying, or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing, and or modifying the Program or works based on it. End of story. Any combination with other GPL stuff automatically puts the code under GPL. The distributing party is accepting the GPL by their own actions. Distributing the resultant product causes the GPL to come into effect. If they want to distribute their original code under a different license that can also be done. Raymond ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On 08/06/2009 11:24 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> >> >> Btw. Patrick, please run ntpdate or sntp, it's hard to puzzle your >> replies into the right order. >> > > > Gnome issue with time setting... > > Thanks for pointing it out. Phew ;) so you don't get me wrong :). Now I should write that I know many people having time issues on Linux too, but never on Windows :D. I'm just kidding, I never heard about this. I run ntpdate manually, I enabled it being automated and I don't like sntp, because I don't understand that there's the need to change names for common commands ... but my favourite distro stays at ntpdate :). Aaaargh, time to take a look at the clock. It seems to be, that I have no time to annoy anybody now ;). Btw. I subscribed to the list because I someone recommended it, while I tried to program for Linux. But I never came above "Hello MIDI" ;). Ralf ___ 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 Thursday 06 August 2009 05:33:58 Arnold Krille wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 10:58:30 you wrote: > > Arnold Krille wrote: > > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 00:41:23 Esben Stien wrote: > > >> Fons Adriaensen writes: > > >>> Rack mount is preferred but not essential. > > >> > > >> What are you talking about..!?!?. Of course, it's essential;). > > > > > > Some metal brackets and some screws will do nicely. No need to pay some > > > vendors overpriced metal brackets and screws. :-D > > > If it doesn't fit, use a larger hammer. > > > > Maybe vendors overpriced rack mount equipment decouple vibrations to > > avoid noise. > > No, they don't. I know from looking at the two racks in my lab filled with > 5- rack-units machines. > > Some require you to have a support because they really only provide the > brackets for the front, some (the better ones) have sliding pullouts and > use the brackets at the front only for fixation. > But there is certainly no noise-reduction involved. Why? Machines of this > form-factor are normally inside a closed (but cooled!) rack inside a noisy > computer room. > It is only us audio-people sometimes searching for 19" devices (with only > half the normal depth) that make as little noise as possible to use them > inside the studio- or live-rack. On the windows side, we just bought some machines from Rain Recording (iirc) that are in our onair studios. Custom case to fit in our slide out and rotate in cabinate racks. Machines have hot swap sata raid iirc and are not overly noisy. I seem to recall a claim of them being good to go with linux too but don't hold me to that if you follow up on this. Get verification. > > Have fun, > > Arnold all the best, drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/06/2009 11:24 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > Btw. Patrick, please run ntpdate or sntp, it's hard to puzzle your > replies into the right order. > Gnome issue with time setting... Thanks for pointing it out. Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd > Ralf > ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Jens M Andreasen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> Pardon, my English is broken. >> > > Which reminds me: > > * What is your favourite programming language? > Assembler for different processors. > * What kind of Linux Audio project are you currently spending time upon? > I never programmed anything for Linux. I'm not able to do it and I don't have the time to learn it. This is really my last reply to this topic, I just replied to this one too, because I've not seen it, because Patrick's mails are bad sorted by Thunderbird, because of a time problem, dunno if this will be fixed by ntpdate/sntp or if this is caused by another problem. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Malte Steiner wrote: > This is a wrong, you can be happy to have a basic windows system running > in a half hour without drivers and the important security bullshit First: I'm not using Windows. People who do use Windows just take one of those illegal Windows "All In One" media, push a button and in less than 30 minutes they have got a stable Windows XP Pro with security upgrades, drivers and without any WGA problematic. After that they install asio4all and than they run a cracked package to get their audio software. > Thats why I am against using cracked software, it hurts open source and > just train the people for the expensive software packages like Photoshop > instead of Gimp. Full ACK. I never wrote anything different. I don't understand why people run Photoshop on Wine, I'm only using GIMP and I would use GIMP too, if I would use Windows. But even if this is bad, it's the comfort you can have for Windows. > That's a poor excuse. Your responses are often slanted towards Linux > is bad, I like microsoft for professional use and in the public lists > that you post on you rarely contribute anything useful. Didn't you blame Ross for my words? I often were balmed for words of other people and again, I didn't started it here, I just defended Ross. >> >> I don't say that I find Microsoft easier. > > WTF? > > You did and you also said your friends do too. No, this is a misunderstanding, maybe because of my broken English. Yes, I've got friends that find Windows easier to use, I don't use Windows privately. I just try to explain that there are illegal ways to set up a Windows easily and that for Linux this could be done legal and I mentioned that 64 Studio does! I disagreed with Ross! You misconduct and use stupid jargon like "troll", without trying to understand what I have written. > I personally love this game so keep it coming. It's not a game for me, I'm serious, because I like to have a legal alternative for the averaged user, I like the idea of FLOSS, I programmed FLOSS my self, Linux isn't the only FLOSS community. This is my last reply to this issue, at the moment I'm helping people to fix their Linux, so I'm short of time. I help them without comments to use Google, this will make them using cracked Windows stuff instead and this also would hurt FLOSS. Btw. Patrick, please run ntpdate or sntp, it's hard to puzzle your replies into the right order. Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:22 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Pardon, my English is broken. Which reminds me: * What is your favourite programming language? * What kind of Linux Audio project are you currently spending time upon? /j ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:26:19 Raymond Martin wrote: > On Wednesday 05 August 2009 21:05:41 drew Roberts wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 July 2009 22:38:18 lase...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code makes it GPL code. > > > > I don't think this is correct. It would only mean that if he were not to > > GPL the code he would be in violation of the original author's copyrights > > (this is a generic he here and I am not speaking to this particular case > > as I have not followed this closely enough.) If he did not want to GPL > > his own code, he could stop distribution, work out another license with > > the original author or any number of other things surely. He would still > > have the already existing copyright violations to face should the > > original author choose to persue them though. > > This was all in the context of distribution. Perhaps this was not clear. No, it was clear. The GPL cannot make someone else's code GPL *if* they don't claim their own code to be GPL. In your given context though, you indicate that the code claimed to be GPL which would make it GPL because the author gave a GPL license to it, not because it contained another author's GPL code. Now an author *has* to GPL their own code that contains another author's GPL code *or* be guilty of copyright violations but the second option is available to the first author and the courts will have to sort it. > > > > I think you > > > are thinking too much in the vain of convention copyrights. The code is > > > automatically GPL by way of use of other GPL code. It no longer is some > > > independent proprietary code solely belonging to the original copyright > > > holder once mixed together. > > > > If I get the time, I seem to remember some FSF pages that disagree with > > this and point rather to the thoughts I posted above but I am snowed > > under at the moment. > > Again, this was about some app that was already distributed. Again, you were clear on the distributed part. In a later part I did some of the search to find the pages mentioned above. > > Raymond all the best, drew ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Ralf Mardorf schrieb: >>With knowledge you need half a day, for Windows people without knowledge need >>half an hour ;) . This is a wrong, you can be happy to have a basic windows system running in a half hour without drivers and the important security bullshit (because Microsoft cant get their act together). Then you start to hunt down the proper drivers for your hardware and after that you install you applications, it takes hours, with experience. I had to do it often for Windows XP and doubt it got any better with Vista. >> The best solution is buying a turn-key system, prepared for the heavy >> duty of shifting audio bits in a defined time. But it shifts the 5 >> hours or more of labour and swearing to the seller and at least he or >> she knows which hardware is in it, but work is still involved anyway. >> > > I don't agree. Most people go the illegal way by using a crack of Cubase > on Windows, Thats why I am against using cracked software, it hurts open source and just train the people for the expensive software packages like Photoshop instead of Gimp. And then they show up on lists like this and says, that all is easier on Windows or Mac, forgetting that they invest time in learning the closed source plus they never installed a system from scratch. When I was confronted with Windows the first time, it was something like 3.1 or 3.11, I had to learn how to setup and administrate it, the knowledge is not given for any system. >in addition they install asio4all and that it is, everything > most times is fine and they have much more possibilities than all Linux > applications has got. Interapplication audio and midi transmission? I have my doubts. Professional applications for free? Barly legal I guess. Complete control of the visual experience and its wasting of CPU cycles? Dream on. -- media art + development http://www.block4.com ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 12:26 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > hermann wrote: > > Hi > > > > Yes, I don't understand why people mean linux audio is a mess, last > > day's I have setup a new box with debian/sid and it took me a half day > > to get a full featured rt audio/midi environment on the run. It's like > > always in life, if you wont to use a tool, you must know how it work's. > > There is no diff in this case to windos or mac. Only, when you have > > already learn how one tool works, may you don't wont to learn how a > > other tool work to receive the same results. So the price for the switch > > to linux is a small piece of your brain witch you must open for basic > > linux knowledge. :-) > > > > hermann > > With knowledge you need half a day, for Windows people without knowledge > need half an hour ;). But comparisons like this are useless. The > conclusion that people started with Windows and don't know Linux isn't > true for the scene were I'm from. We started with the C64 etc. and then > we used Linux only and because of troubles with real-time audio some > switched to Windows. As an audio engineer on work I had to work with > Microsoft and Apple and less trouble, at home I'm using Linux with lot > of troubles. > > Ralf You will tell me that you could make a windows install in a half hour, without knowledge ? And you find/buy/copy all applications you need for a audio/midi session included ? But like you said, comparisons like this are useless. The point is simple the people use windows or mac becasue they use windows or mac, that's all. They only eat what they know. And let me reaped, the price you have to pay for a linux pro audio box is a small peace of your mind that you need to feat with the linux knowledge base. If one is not willing to pay this price, linux isn't for him/her. Then you have to pay the price windows or mac force you to pay. hermann ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/06/2009 07:01 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> If you don't stop trolling and continually harping on about how you >> find Microsoft is easier to work with and Linux Audio has lots of >> problems without actually contributing anything useful to advance the >> tools that you find so lacking then I'm not the only one who will >> continue to have a word for you. > > This seems to be a problem of my broken English or anything else. That's a poor excuse. Your responses are often slanted towards Linux is bad, I like microsoft for professional use and in the public lists that you post on you rarely contribute anything useful. > > I don't say that I find Microsoft easier. WTF? You did and you also said your friends do too. You are a consumate troll. Now you are twisting and rewording your reponses to match your needs. I personally love this game so keep it coming. Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 re all, On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:00:20PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: > I disagree (from expirience in writing software in a science > project) mostly because half a year (which seems to be the normal > timespan a student is available with internships or thesis) is to > short to successfully start and finish(!) a project. of course there is a substantial difference between a full BA, a 3 years MA or a short internship / stage. we should definitely draw a line around what we are talking about. > And that doesn't even include supporting further development over > time. These are the things a long-term maintainer (aka director:) > does. yep. and where do you learn to be a director and commit to long-term projects? :) seldom i've had the opportunity to make my long-term innovative project (and well succesful, in some cases) accepted by professors at school, rather than being invited to contribute to professors' projects for the limited time span i was following their course. at last i believe both approaches are useful: learn how to contribute to an existing project as well how to structure a new one - and even to make different projects interoperable, whenever complementary in their functionality. my argument is that in schools the latter is often neglected, probably because the professors are often concentrated on their own projects. in general i disregard lack of long-term commitment in students, but how would you ever learn to direction a project whose creator is your professor, even payd to mantain it over time? maybe fork it :) if it's GNU GPL'ed :) ciao - -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E Nowadays only soubrettes, body builders, media owners and "the richest bozo in the pond" tend to be elected by a population of zombified slaves happy to run inside their guinea pig wheels Fravia, April 2009, http://fravia.com/swansong.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkp6x+oACgkQe2QxhLU0C17KnACgzL9I6FShGs0QrxT4aZG5vSRt AjwAoJfKCNoh+wkYKqY5T5NkMLpA/IJ8 =1XBX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote: > If you don't stop trolling and continually harping on about how you > find Microsoft is easier to work with and Linux Audio has lots of > problems without actually contributing anything useful to advance the > tools that you find so lacking then I'm not the only one who will > continue to have a word for you. This seems to be a problem of my broken English or anything else. I don't say that I find Microsoft easier. I'm only using Linux at home. I said that the averaged user has often problems with Linux and in relation to that less problems with Apple and Microsoft. And I would like to see more Linux folks to allow people to ask what they want to ask and to help them instead of dismiss them to Google and to ignore the user needs. I'm not a coder for Linux, I only can get in contact with coders and I do this by developer lists, e.g. Rui added different timer sources to Qtractor, because of me. I could argue with a lot of stuff, but I guess there's no need to justify anything. I did not write one line of code, but I found out a lot of issues and reported those issues and some coders liked to get reports, maybe you don't like reports, but I didn't write to you, so please calm down. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/06/2009 06:34 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> Many people use Linux Audio tools and infrastructure for professional >> use everyday. > > Yes, less than 1% of all users are using Linux and this are many > people, because for audio there are more less people than for general > usage. This statistic is often reported but it is always referenced with a disclaimer saying that they can't really tell how many people are using Linux. The truth is that millions of people use Linux for daily professional use, millions more use it as a hobby platform and further millions more use multi boot systems. > > And more than 99% people are less than less than 1% people. I do > understand now :D. > >> you are a troll. > > Yes, I'm a troll. > > So everybody is fine now? If you don't stop trolling and continually harping on about how you find Microsoft is easier to work with and Linux Audio has lots of problems without actually contributing anything useful to advance the tools that you find so lacking then I'm not the only one who will continue to have a word for you. Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd > > The troll now will again help people to set up their Linux, instead of > calling them stupid or lazy or trolls. > > Remember, I just defended Ross, because he didn't said something > wrong, I didn't started any negative posting. > > Why didn't you wrote off-list? You made mountains out of molehills. > Isn't this trolling done by you? > > Ralf ___ 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 re all, On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 03:49:36PM -0400, David Robillard wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:33 +0200, jaromil wrote: > > still, myself being a person working in education, i think the > > problem is more structural: i'd rather question why students in a > > school should be contributing to a professor's project, rather > > than starting one on their own? they could learn how to work in a > > more horizontal and creative way, even if the project will be less > > interesting in the eyes of the director, who should be there to > > give suggestions and help on students projects, not the contrary. > > This sounds a lot like elementary/middle/high school thinking being > applied to University where it really doesn't apply (no offense) > > There are plenty of opportunities for students to do their own thing > as course work (or directed studies courses, if possible). > Professor-run projects are generally larger, more complicated > things, that some random student on their own is not about to write > in a term or two. They often live longer than a single student's > entire tenure at the University... this probably applies more to engineering and science faculties, rather than design and arts. in the latter, being capable to envision large projects yourself and establish a platform for collaboration with others is a crucial skill that will empower the students' professional future. i'm still surprised how often graduated students have little experience in team working, still believing it can be fruitful to use some of the time of a BA or MA to learn that. > Science(TM) tends to be a bit more difficult and elongated than > sitting down to write some straightforward program. Often you don't > even know if what you're attempting is possible, or will work well > at all. If it's straightforward for a student to sit down and write > the program in a few months, it's probably not very interesting or > relevant... agree. of course it should include involvement of other students and professors and aim at some consistent innovation, especially for a MA course, students should be able to achieve that. as when you enroll a PhD you need to have already a project outline for your study period, in a MA course some time can be dedicated in outlining it under guidance and confrontation with other students. the point can be defined along the coop/collab binomial: i find this paper by Ted Paniz a pretty good insight on the topic http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm ciao - -- jaromil, dyne.org developer, http://jaromil.dyne.org GPG: 779F E8B5 47C7 3A89 4112 64D0 7B64 3184 B534 0B5E Nowadays only soubrettes, body builders, media owners and "the richest bozo in the pond" tend to be elected by a population of zombified slaves happy to run inside their guinea pig wheels Fravia, April 2009, http://fravia.com/swansong.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkp6wqoACgkQe2QxhLU0C14QTgCfSE/j11c1YaqQ8bzOyh/7M9hP tkUAniRpd6ZzAxa25dWske1W8eu6jFlS =8B61 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Many people use Linux Audio tools and infrastructure for professional > use everyday. Yes, less than 1% of all users are using Linux and this are many people, because for audio there are more less people than for general usage. And more than 99% people are less than less than 1% people. I do understand now :D. > you are a troll. Yes, I'm a troll. So everybody is fine now? The troll now will again help people to set up their Linux, instead of calling them stupid or lazy or trolls. Remember, I just defended Ross, because he didn't said something wrong, I didn't started any negative posting. Why didn't you wrote off-list? You made mountains out of molehills. Isn't this trolling done by you? Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Patrick Shirkey wrote: > >> It seems to me that this attitude comes from a limited understanding >> of how the open source community works. >> > > It differs to other open source communities, I agree and this might be a > problem for me, I agree. But I don't agree that most machines can be set > up to be fine with Linux audio. I mentioned that most people using Linux > don't use many recording techniques, that are common for home-recording > and professional recording. > > At home I'm only using Linux! It's said that less than 1% desktop > computer users, including all non-audio users, are using Linux worldwide > in 2009. It's from a German report done by Linux folks. If developers > won't listen to users to understand their needs, the amount of users > will > decrease. > What's bad with pointing out some issues? > > Ralf Pardon, my English is broken. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote: > It seems to me that this attitude comes from a limited understanding > of how the open source community works. It differs to other open source communities, I agree and this might be a problem for me, I agree. But I don't agree that most machines can be set up to be fine with Linux audio. I mentioned that most people using Linux don't use many recording techniques, that are common for home-recording and professional recording. At home I'm only using Linux! It's said that less than 1% desktop computer users, including all non-audio users, are using Linux worldwide in 2009. It's from a German report done by Linux folks. If developers won't listen to users to understand their needs, the amount of users will decrees. What's bad with pointing out some issues? Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/06/2009 05:26 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: hermann wrote: Hi Yes, I don't understand why people mean linux audio is a mess, last day's I have setup a new box with debian/sid and it took me a half day to get a full featured rt audio/midi environment on the run. It's like always in life, if you wont to use a tool, you must know how it work's. There is no diff in this case to windos or mac. Only, when you have already learn how one tool works, may you don't wont to learn how a other tool work to receive the same results. So the price for the switch to linux is a small piece of your brain witch you must open for basic linux knowledge. :-) hermann With knowledge you need half a day, for Windows people without knowledge need half an hour ;). But comparisons like this are useless. The conclusion that people started with Windows and don't know Linux isn't true for the scene were I'm from. We started with the C64 etc. and then we used Linux only and because of troubles with real-time audio some switched to Windows. As an audio engineer on work I had to work with Microsoft and Apple and less trouble, at home I'm using Linux with lot of troubles. Again. What is your point? Many people use Linux Audio tools and infrastructure for professional use everyday. All you are saying is that Linux is difficult for you and your friends to use and Microsoft is easy. Why do you insist on continually saying this to the LAD list? We know that there are limitations to the Linux Audio system. No one has ever claimed otherwise. Because you very rarely have useful feedback, as far as I can tell, you are a troll. Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
hermann wrote: > Hi > > Yes, I don't understand why people mean linux audio is a mess, last > day's I have setup a new box with debian/sid and it took me a half day > to get a full featured rt audio/midi environment on the run. It's like > always in life, if you wont to use a tool, you must know how it work's. > There is no diff in this case to windos or mac. Only, when you have > already learn how one tool works, may you don't wont to learn how a > other tool work to receive the same results. So the price for the switch > to linux is a small piece of your brain witch you must open for basic > linux knowledge. :-) > > hermann With knowledge you need half a day, for Windows people without knowledge need half an hour ;). But comparisons like this are useless. The conclusion that people started with Windows and don't know Linux isn't true for the scene were I'm from. We started with the C64 etc. and then we used Linux only and because of troubles with real-time audio some switched to Windows. As an audio engineer on work I had to work with Microsoft and Apple and less trouble, at home I'm using Linux with lot of troubles. Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On 08/06/2009 04:43 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> >> >> This is why I know so many people who never ever will use Linux, because >> of noise like yours Paul. >> > > And your point is what exactly? That Paul should give a toss about > those people? That he or others on this list should just accept the > continual negative feedback from yourself and Gram? Gram? You mean me? Continual negative feedback? Sorry but that's not what I deserve. Dive into the archives if you want ;) And I restated my critique in my last message, so I will not apologize again ;) Time for some positive things now... let's make some music... 100% on GNU/Linux :) \r ___ 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
drew Roberts wrote: > On Sunday 02 August 2009 09:41:57 Arnold Krille wrote: > >> Standard contracts for employees include that the copyrights of their >> productive work during company time is property of the company. And that >> includes software... >> >> Arnold >> > > OK, but what about the copyrights of their non productive work during company > time? > > Or is all copyrightable work done on company time legally deemed to be > *productive* ??? ~;-) > > all the best, > > drew This is a well known problem. If it's not part of the contract and by standard contracts it isn't, you have the copyright to what you make not for your employer. It might be that you program something, not under the GPL, not open source, that has the same function as what you programmed for your employer. 1. Maybe you used the same routines, but nobody can know this. 2. Maybe you were writing a compete new program. I worked as engineer for Brauner some years ago, am I allowed to develop and distribute a microphone today by all the knowledge I've got from the time I worked for Brauner? I guess the answers will differ to the countries we are living in. Brauner don't pay me any more, I don't got a compensation to be quiet and in Germany many people are unemployed. So I'm allowed to do so. I only see a problem for a coder who do program 2 applications doing the same, one for his employer and the other under the GPL or what ever licences. I guess this is something a court needs to decide by asking programming experts ;). ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
On 08/06/2009 04:43 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: This is why I know so many people who never ever will use Linux, because of noise like yours Paul. And your point is what exactly? That Paul should give a toss about those people? That he or others on this list should just accept the continual negative feedback from yourself and Gram? That Linux focused mailing lists are is not suitable places for the people you know to get support for technical issues? I know lots of people who will never intentionally use Linux because they don't know what it is. I also know lots of people who will never use Linux because they can't handle the pace and requirements that come with running a Linux Audio system for professional use. I also know lots of people who would rather pay me or someone else with technical expertise to manage their system for them. I also know lots of people who are unable or too cheap to pay me or someone with technical expertise to manage their system for them and most of them still ask me for help at every opportunity. Some anti Linux people like to promote the idea that Linux people are less open to their needs than people on other platforms. It seems to me that this attitude comes from a limited understanding of how the open source community works. It's a fairly simple concept. Basically anyone who is unable to help themselves shouldn't use Linux unless they are prepared to learn how. That includes learning how to communicate effectively to the people that are putting in the effort to make things work. Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd For flame-wars please reply off-list ;). I'll ignore it :). Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Malte Steiner wrote: > People are moaning about Linux Audio for a while but should look at the > other systems, pro audio simply doesnt work on any (operating) system > without some involvement. Hard- and software are now very complex > systems and with all these small problems, its still not there. > Computers may work if you do some basic web browsing and writing a > letter but anything beyond is asking for trouble. If its gaming or video > editing or proaudio, the forums are full with horrorstorys for any > operating system. The expectations of the people, driven by shameless > glossy marketing, are not met and wont for the next couple of years. > The best solution is buying a turn-key system, prepared for the heavy > duty of shifting audio bits in a defined time. But it shifts the 5 hours > or more of labour and swearing to the seller and at least he or she > knows which hardware is in it, but work is still involved anyway. > I don't agree. Most people go the illegal way by using a crack of Cubase on Windows, in addition they install asio4all and that it is, everything most times is fine and they have much more possibilities than all Linux applications has got. Linux shouldn't become like Windows ;), don't get me wrong. But for Linux there are many unsolved issues, e.g. the hardware vendor troubles. > 64Studio had it right for a while with a rather smooth out-of the box > experience regarding low latency audio but I dont know where they are now. Linux is the OS I recommend all people I know and 64 Studio is the distro I recommend. 3.0-beta3 is fine out of the box for most needs, it's the best 64 Studio they ever made, e.g. because they use JACK2 by default, so no chip set will make JACK disconnect clients any more. Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Paul Davis wrote: > 2009/8/5 Grammostola Rosea : > > >> Linux audio is a total mess... a normal human being can't work with pro >> audio on Linux, unless he/she spent hours and hours to learn the little >> tricks or he has an expert available who helps him... >> > > What is the purpose of telling this mailing list this? > Maybe he just replied to another mail and wanted to point out some problems that are the cause, that there are so less people using Linux real-time audio. I guess a developers list isn't a bad place to do it. I don't have the impression that he wanted to attack you ;). >> I spent 5 hours last week to help somebody to get his (pro) audio >> working on Linux... He says to his girlfriend, you better spend a 1000 >> euro's for such a white macbook, then things just work... >> > > unless of course you need to use an aggregate device and inadvertently > use an app that resets the sample rate and you lose one "side" of the > device (playback or capture). or maybe you just use a mac mini with > the defaults and notice totally crappy sound quality (clicks and ticks > everywhere) that don't go away until you buy a new audio interface or > reboot regularly. or you run the OS X update utility and the new wifi > drivers kill audio latency. or you already have a firewire interface > and you forget to notice that the macbook you just bought doesn't have > firewire anymore. etc. etc. etc. > Why do you make this noise? >> I don't know if I can really recommend Linux for pro audio to normal >> human beings... at least I should say, you need a lot of time, not easy >> give up on things and a lot of patience... >> > > then get off this list and leave us to our playthings. or better yet, > spend time critiquing the current state of the "out of the box" > experience with the people who **actually provide** the out of the > box experience. > Why do you make this noise? >> I don't know if there is a connection between LAD and the distro >> builders, but it seems there is need for change somewhere... >> >> Kim did the switch (nice article), but he has an other background then >> most of the people who works on Desktops and in studios... >> > > Maybe Kim is precisely representative of the sort of the user LAD-ers > are interested in. Maybe not. What purpose does your email serve? Do > you think that anyone on this list is not ACUTELY aware of the > situation you are describing? This is why I know so many people who never ever will use Linux, because of noise like yours Paul. For flame-wars please reply off-list ;). I'll ignore it :). Ralf ___ 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 Thursday 06 August 2009 10:58:30 you wrote: > Arnold Krille wrote: > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 00:41:23 Esben Stien wrote: > >> Fons Adriaensen writes: > >>> Rack mount is preferred but not essential. > >> What are you talking about..!?!?. Of course, it's essential;). > > Some metal brackets and some screws will do nicely. No need to pay some > > vendors overpriced metal brackets and screws. :-D > > If it doesn't fit, use a larger hammer. > Maybe vendors overpriced rack mount equipment decouple vibrations to > avoid noise. No, they don't. I know from looking at the two racks in my lab filled with 5- rack-units machines. Some require you to have a support because they really only provide the brackets for the front, some (the better ones) have sliding pullouts and use the brackets at the front only for fixation. But there is certainly no noise-reduction involved. Why? Machines of this form-factor are normally inside a closed (but cooled!) rack inside a noisy computer room. It is only us audio-people sometimes searching for 19" devices (with only half the normal depth) that make as little noise as possible to use them inside the studio- or live-rack. Have fun, 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] Kim did the switch to Linux
Grammostola Rosea wrote: > David Robillard wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 21:53 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: >> >> >>> >From TFA: >>> >>> --8<-- >>> Go to System->Preferences->Sound, click on the Devices tab, and check >>> out the pulldown menu next to ‘Sound Events’ at the top of the panel. >>> You will see various acronyms, possibly including cryptic-looking >>> technologies like OSS, ESD, ALSA, JACK, and Pulse Audio. These acronyms >>> represent a byzantine tangle of conflicting technologies that over time, >>> and due to political reasons or backwards compatibility, have ended up >>> cohabiting with one another. ‘Frankenstein’ might be an accurate >>> metaphor here. >>> >>> >>> Thankfully, there is a simpler way, which is the combination of ALSA [a >>> high-performance, kernel-level audio and MIDI system] and JACK [a system >>> for creating low-latency audio, MIDI, and sync connections between >>> applications and computers]. The battle-scarred among us have learned to >>> ignore all the other audio cruft bolted on to Ubuntu and just use ALSA >>> and JACK. One can think of the ALSA/JACK stack, the heart of most pro >>> Linux studios, as the Core Audio of Linux and in my opinion Jack should >>> be the first thing installed on any musicians laptop. I’d go so far as >>> to suggest placing it in the Startup Applications so it’s always >>> running. >>> ---8<-- >>> >>> >> IMO without a ton of effort Jack could, and should, be turned into a >> viable default installation audio system (or the bottom layer of such a >> system, at least). The desktop guys certainly aren't ever going to get >> it right. >> >> The above problem is a very real one as far as people's perception of >> GNU/Linux as an audio system. What a mess. We can do better. >> >> -dr >> > Linux audio is a total mess... a normal human being can't work with pro > audio on Linux, unless he/she spent hours and hours to learn the little > tricks or he has an expert available who helps him... > > I spent 5 hours last week to help somebody to get his (pro) audio > working on Linux... He says to his girlfriend, you better spend a 1000 > euro's for such a white macbook, then things just work... > > I don't know if I can really recommend Linux for pro audio to normal > human beings... at least I should say, you need a lot of time, not easy > give up on things and a lot of patience... > > I don't know if there is a connection between LAD and the distro > builders, but it seems there is need for change somewhere... > > Kim did the switch (nice article), but he has an other background then > most of the people who works on Desktops and in studios... > You know that I completely agree not to recommend Linux real-time audio, resp. it depends to the hardware and needs. 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 on my machine is fine out of the box, excepted of the MIDI jitter sent to external equipment and this wasn't solvable by using different sequencer timer sources Rui added to Qtractor, just because of my troubles. Making the USB MIDI device head of all MIDI devices by rtirq or anything else, e.g. compiling and patching an individual kernel also didn't help for other installations I tested. I guess if somebody just want to use Ardour and Rosegarden or Qtractor by using virtual synth only, this seems to work for most machines out of the box by using 64 Studio. I guess for the beta there only needs to be edit /etc/security/limits.conf if somebody wants to use Ardour. I know a lot of people having the same trouble with JACK I had. JACK1 disconnected clients, but e.g. 64 Studio beta now comes with JACK2 out of the box, so a newbie don't need to do anything, he won't run into this trouble. Step by step some problems were solved. There are some things missing for a Linux studio in the box, that is available for Mac and Windows, but for people like me, having external studio equipment this isn't a big problem. If we don't no the needs of a user and what equipment he has got, recommending Linux is impossible. For some machines there still seems to be a problem to use the installers or they got troubles because even the VESA driver isn't fine, but this isn't a problem just for real-time audio Linux. Ralf OT: In theory the system timer for today's real-time kernels should be the best solution, that's why Rui first made only this timer available by Qtractor, but anyway, for my machine it's PCM playback, but even this one isn't fine. ___ 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
Arnold Krille wrote: > On Thursday 06 August 2009 00:41:23 Esben Stien wrote: > >> Fons Adriaensen writes: >> >>> Rack mount is preferred but not essential. >>> >> What are you talking about..!?!?. Of course, it's essential;). >> > > Some metal brackets and some screws will do nicely. No need to pay some > vendors overpriced metal brackets and screws. :-D > If it doesn't fit, use a larger hammer. :D Maybe vendors overpriced rack mount equipment decouple vibrations to avoid noise. The hammered crooked DIY rack mount case might become a PITA. For my computer case the only thing that sometimes make noise are the side panels because of small clearance to the rest of the case. Sometimes they are vibrating and bump against the rest of the case. Problems like this are solvable, but if possible, directly buying something that is fine, seems to be the better solution. I'm only using DIY stuff :D, sometimes it's fine, but sometimes ... ;). Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] ICMC anyone?
It'll be great to see you all there. - Original Message - From: "Ivica Ico Bukvic" To: Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [LAD] ICMC anyone? > Barring any unforeseen circumstances I should be there as well. > > ico > >> -Original Message- >> From: linux-audio-dev-boun...@lists.linuxaudio.org [mailto:linux-audio- >> dev-boun...@lists.linuxaudio.org] On Behalf Of nescivi >> Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:17 PM >> To: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> Subject: Re: [LAD] ICMC anyone? >> >> On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:20:23 victor wrote: >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > changing a bit of the subject in this list, is anyone here going >> > to the ICMC? I'll be in Montreal for a week from 17/08, it'll be >> > nice to meet some of you there. >> >> I'll be there. >> it's only a short bikeride away for me, and I did register :) >> >> sincerely, >> Marije >> ___ >> Linux-audio-dev mailing list >> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev > > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Kim did the switch to Linux
Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On 08/06/2009 03:16 AM, David Robillard wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 21:53 +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote: >> >>> >From TFA: >>> >>> --8<-- >>> Go to System->Preferences->Sound, click on the Devices tab, and check >>> out the pulldown menu next to ‘Sound Events’ at the top of the panel. >>> You will see various acronyms, possibly including cryptic-looking >>> technologies like OSS, ESD, ALSA, JACK, and Pulse Audio. These acronyms >>> represent a byzantine tangle of conflicting technologies that over time, >>> and due to political reasons or backwards compatibility, have ended up >>> cohabiting with one another. ‘Frankenstein’ might be an accurate >>> metaphor here. >>> >>> >>> Thankfully, there is a simpler way, which is the combination of ALSA [a >>> high-performance, kernel-level audio and MIDI system] and JACK [a system >>> for creating low-latency audio, MIDI, and sync connections between >>> applications and computers]. The battle-scarred among us have learned to >>> ignore all the other audio cruft bolted on to Ubuntu and just use ALSA >>> and JACK. One can think of the ALSA/JACK stack, the heart of most pro >>> Linux studios, as the Core Audio of Linux and in my opinion Jack should >>> be the first thing installed on any musicians laptop. I’d go so far as >>> to suggest placing it in the Startup Applications so it’s always >>> running. >>> ---8<-- >>> >> >> IMO without a ton of effort Jack could, and should, be turned into a >> viable default installation audio system (or the bottom layer of such a >> system, at least). The desktop guys certainly aren't ever going to get >> it right. >> >> The above problem is a very real one as far as people's perception of >> GNU/Linux as an audio system. What a mess. We can do better. >> >> > > > > AFAICT it's like 95% there already as far as the average user is > concerned. So the desktop guys you are referring to have got it and > are way ahead of anyone else in this respect. > > Pulse is ubiquitous now. Jack was never intended to be the default > audio system for desktop use. > > Let's just fix the interaction between pulse and jack and be done with it. +1 > > It's harmful to suggest that it things are less than they are as it > just makes people who have already invested a lot of effort get > annoyed and turned off. Linux audio is not bad, not at all... but for newbies it can be pretty difficult to get the right configuration, if would be nice if 'we' could improve that, and yes fixing the interaction between pulse and jack is maybe a large part of that and afaik it's already in progress and will hit the coming distro releases... So sorry if I sounded to negative... I just wanted to say that it isn't always surprising that people don't convert easily to Linux for pro audio... and that I would love to see that improving. Kind regards, \r ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] ICMC anyone?
Barring any unforeseen circumstances I should be there as well. ico > -Original Message- > From: linux-audio-dev-boun...@lists.linuxaudio.org [mailto:linux-audio- > dev-boun...@lists.linuxaudio.org] On Behalf Of nescivi > Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:17 PM > To: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > Subject: Re: [LAD] ICMC anyone? > > On Sunday 02 August 2009 15:20:23 victor wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > changing a bit of the subject in this list, is anyone here going > > to the ICMC? I'll be in Montreal for a week from 17/08, it'll be > > nice to meet some of you there. > > I'll be there. > it's only a short bikeride away for me, and I did register :) > > sincerely, > Marije > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor created on sourceforge
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:11 AM, drew Roberts wrote: > On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote: >> You cannot claim someone failed to distribute software under the GPL, and >> at the same time take said software and excercise the rights that *would* >> have been granted to you *if* the software was distributed under the GPL. > > I think you can. Arnout was referring to the case where the software was provided to you under something other than the GPL, violating someone else's license in the process. In fact, you agreed with him in another message you posted only six minutes before that one. I think that having come in late to this thorny discussion, you're tangling up two different debates: * if someone provides software to me under the GPL but doesn't do a proper job of complying with its requirements, am I at liberty to fix that in my own redistribution of it? -- yes, and this is presumably what you're answering above * if someone provides software to me that is _not_ apparently under the GPL, but it turns out to contain GPL'd code and so should have been under the GPL, am I at liberty to "fix" that by assuming my rights under the GPL, obtaining the source code (perhaps covertly) and redistributing that? -- no, not at all, and this is what Arnout and I were referring to in this thread and what your previous email appeared to agree with The second question becomes broadly irrelevant here if we are prepared to accept Bob did convey his intention that the Impro-Visor code be GPL'd, but Arnout and I were responding to the blanket "use of GPL code makes it GPL" (which would imply the second question above). Chris ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
