Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux fromproprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 22 Juin 2003 23:25, Ivica Bukvic a écrit : > I never implied occlusion of the source code nor did I ever suggest > that I've worked out all the quirks out of the whole system. It is/was > a mere proposal to instigate a discussion at this point, nothing more. So, after all this discussion, do you agree that your proposal would not help free software? That the GNU/Linux platform is not a end in itself? > First you make an implied conclusion that had no grounds, now you > extrapolate upon that. You'd be a wonderful politician. Thank you. That's exactly what I'm doing here. Politics. Not business to protect free platforms against non-free platforms by forging a non-free software license. > This has nothing to do with command line tools. This has to do with the > _attitude_ you give to outsiders when you talk about oss/linux > issues... I don't get it. What _attitude_? I have no problem hurting the fragile feelings of proprietary software users. I'm not trying to sell them anything, except the idea that they should use free software whenever possible. If I'm not successful, then other free software users might be. But I promess I'll study the "Linux advocacy howto". > Your whole argument stems from your own implication and hence it's not > worth discussing. We can talk about your software and your experience if you prefer. I like your work. > > I don't care about Linux. > > So what in the world are you doing on a _linux_ audio dev list? I'm a GNU/Linux user, but I don't care about Linux, I care about using free software. I might decide to use another free platform or I might be forced to work on a proprietary platform for a couple of minutes per week. In any case, I want to use as much free software possible, not exclusively on top of GNU/Linux. > > The free software movement is not purist > > Perhaps in its implementation, but in theory... (My advice: do not tell > this to Richard Stallman) The GPL is very well done, and since Stallman is defending a strong idea, he looks like a religious leader, but he's quite pragmatic. He's also human, and gets angry sometimes. Oh well. The free software movement is not purist in the sense that it's trying to bring free software to this world, not by forcing people to use free software, but by promoting and protect the use of free software. > And who will fund such a development? Those who believe in free software like RedHat, IBM, Suse, some universities and governments... > How do you think the Linux kernel is being developed so fast? By enthusiatic developers with enough money to survive. > If we wait for us geeks to come up with such a machine, at this pace > I'll be long dead before that happens, so meanwhile I am trying to > cook-up the second best thing that might just happen within my lifetime. 10 years ago, I was eager to buy a Mac with their promised Unix like operating system built on top of a Mach micro-kernel. Apple finally delivered something good, 6 years after I switched to GNU/Linux. Now it's too late because the GNU/Linux platform is good enough and a much better choice because it is (mostly) free, except for some graphic cards drivers (nVidia, ATI and Matrox are very bad these days). > The reason for this discussion is because I am trying to come up with a > way to strengthen the case for Linux in academic audio studios. I hope you'll succeed. I quit my job in a university because as a super-technician I was forced to help art students use proprietary software. One teacher even laugh at me because my free alternatives were not as shiny as his $1 workstation filled with expensive proprietary software. Fancy computers and obedient students are only toys for teachers like him. > As it stands right now, for a good number of musicians/studios out there > the Linux has less and less of advantages over its competitors Musicians rarely care about their liberty. You should not expect the music industry, even your academic circle, to strongly embrace the free software movement. You might be forced to use proprietary tools, so in this case you better want free software to run on any computer. - -- Marc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9pFiQdzoeKQ0PccRAkMEAKCrx0JWcI3GqRcY8gS7UgtVOeQjuACgk8OY EFoiLoVdAaHhVochj1GB3Kc= =f4KP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 11:25:58PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote: > > I don't care about Linux. > > So what in the world are you doing on a _linux_ audio dev list? i wouldn't mind this being free-audio-dev list. although i think it would lose some of the technical focus on the particular intricacies of developing audio systems on linux. (to a large extent alsa and jack have made many of the issues moot. we are really down to which release is best for scheduling and how the whole permission/capability issue sucks, and in all truth abandoning linux for drawin would probably cure those :D). > And who will fund such a development? How do you think the Linux kernel > is being developed so fast? if i remember my history correctly there was a boy and his pc and an ftp and some other folks who were bored. and *then* the corporations came. i didn't really notice a huge amount of change in the speed of development before and after companies came into the picture (mostly because their focus was on things i don't use, and progress in audio on linux has been glacial as ever (i feel). though jack seemed a huge move forward). linux was here before the money and it will be here when the money's gone. and then something better will come along and linux will be assigned to the scap heap. don't get too attached, it only makes one inflexible. but to answer the original question, if history is a guide, i guess the taxpayers of finland will fund the development. > So, in short, yes, I am interested in seeing larger adoption of Linux. > It's on my agenda because I believe. And I would love to see its greater > deployment in the academic circles since this is what my > domain/profession is. The reason for this discussion is because I am > trying to come up with a way to strengthen the case for Linux in > academic audio studios. fair enough. > As it stands right now, for a good number of musicians/studios out > there the Linux has less and less of advantages over its competitors > (obviously in part because they fail to understand its greatest > strength -- its freedom), and a steep learning curve working against > it. i think if you're not a developer, free software doesn't make a lot of sense with respect to why it's good and what you gain (unless the product is outright better). for a developer, you gain a lot; you can basically do anything you want (and are capable of), but when you are just a lowly user, it might appear that you are merely trading one master for another. instead of being subject to the whim of a company that doesn't listen, you are at the whim of developers who often times don't listen and tell you that you whine too much and should start pulling your own weight. (and yeah that's a caricature of the actual situation). i would love to see wider adoption, but for a user coming from logic, pt, cubase, and whatall, right now, it doesn't make sense. it makes sense as a philosophical move or for technological freedom, or for curiousity's sake, but i honestly don't see it making sense in terms of productivity. heck, for most folks, switching sequencers is a huge investment in time and effort. so we are back at the original question: what do you do to drive wider adoption? if you assume what i'm saying two paragraphs up is in some way accurate, then it makes sense that you should make software so good that it will make people want to switch (and once they switch to the audio software and are happy, motivating a switch to linux is easy). how do you fund it? convince redhat that audio is the next big industry for linux to take on and get them to hire all of us. or keep regular jobs to pay the bills. or go to school and con your advisor or your prefered funding agency into giving you money to do it (or something near enough to it: e.g. ask DARPA for a grant to develop a system that kills puppies *while* making music...DARPA is all about the puppy killing). or start a company and attempt to find funding for it (vc or by starting really small and getting bigger). or start a company to do something else entirely and then funnel some money into moving into the audio application space. or convince someone (nat. endowment for the humanties/arts, education dept., lots of national governments with money out there) that the linuxmusic-for-schools idea i mentioned before is such a great idea that they should grant a relatively small amount of money up front for you to develop an application suite which will pay huge dividends later. or sell cookies. or start an audio effects house to do sound and music for movies and then develop custom tools for doing that. start a music hardware company building linux based gear and develop custom tools. i mean if one were super motivated, one could just start a company, build a product, and then sell it and support. easy no? (no). by the way what is your particular research bent/area? it seems like that would in the short term be the easiest and most likely way of doing it
RE: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> Guess what: your derived license would be incompatible with the GPL or any > OSI license. You don't understand what free software is. Here you go again, yakking making conclusions on your own doctored "facts." I never implied occlusion of the source code nor did I ever suggest that I've worked out all the quirks out of the whole system. It is/was a mere proposal to instigate a discussion at this point, nothing more. > Are you stating that I'm elitist because I use command line tools? I never > agreed with gui users that believe their tools are easier and better for > ordinary people. These tools are sometimes so complicated and badly > designed that the only reasonable command to use is "quit". As much as > you think they should use a gui because you believe they can't use > anything else, I think ordinary people should use free command line tools > because they can. Text is not elitist, and it's still the easiest and > most powerful intellectual technology. First you make an implied conclusion that had no grounds, now you extrapolate upon that. You'd be a wonderful politician. This has nothing to do with command line tools. This has to do with the _attitude_ you give to outsiders when you talk about oss/linux issues... > Have you ever tried to reduce a bunch of images (let's say 1) with > Photoshop? Now that you mention it, there are scripts you can run in Photoshop, predetermined operations on a file, or sets of files. How do you think they do post-production of movie clips (i.e. in a film-gimp fashion)? But that is beside the point. Your whole argument stems from your own implication and hence it's not worth discussing. > I don't care about Linux. So what in the world are you doing on a _linux_ audio dev list? > The free software movement is not purist Perhaps in its implementation, but in theory... (My advice: do not tell this to Richard Stallman) > Hopefully, at some point, most of the computing chain will be > free, including the hardware. And who will fund such a development? How do you think the Linux kernel is being developed so fast? If we wait for us geeks to come up with such a machine, at this pace I'll be long dead before that happens, so meanwhile I am trying to cook-up the second best thing that might just happen within my lifetime. Nonetheless, for what it's worth I share your enthusiasm, otherwise I would not be here. So, in short, yes, I am interested in seeing larger adoption of Linux. It's on my agenda because I believe. And I would love to see its greater deployment in the academic circles since this is what my domain/profession is. The reason for this discussion is because I am trying to come up with a way to strengthen the case for Linux in academic audio studios. As it stands right now, for a good number of musicians/studios out there the Linux has less and less of advantages over its competitors (obviously in part because they fail to understand its greatest strength -- its freedom), and a steep learning curve working against it. Cheers, Ico
RE: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linuxfrom proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> Do we want to _become_ what our "competition" is? I don't think so. I > don't like pushy tactics. We are (by some measure) successsfull because > we are not like the "competition". Point well taken. However, as someone pointed out earlier, we need more contributors to our community in order to have faster (or more competitive) progress. And the only way I see getting more contributors is to have larger pool of users. Besides, I am not suggesting the "same" tactics as our "competitors", since the source will be still freely available, which in itself is lightyears beyond what msft and apple provide. Of course, the measure of success is in the eye of beholder. Yet, I am overly surprised that this community is not so much about Linux as much it is about the "free software." I always felt that the two are synonymous and that with the failure of one, the other would be left stranded. If Linux were to fail, I don't think I would have enough of energy to start from scratch using another free OS, regardless how similar it is/was. I simply find it a bit frustrating that someone who has chipped-in very little is benefiting a lot from our work, and on top of that makes a good buck out of it -- and I am restlessly looking for a rational solution to it. Please understand that I have no problem with the GPL license in general and am honored to be a part of this community giving my own contribution out for free. It does wonders for my ego :-). Still, the question(s) remain: How do we channel the income made off of the GPL'ed software from commercial companies so that they directly benefit us, the developers, not the companies who had very little to do with our efforts (this question sounds a bit messy since it also implies that Redhat is bad, but that is not what I am trying to imply -- well you know what I mean, too tired to type any more :-)? Is this worth pursuing (obviously you know my answer)? If so, what are the options that yield concrete results (if there are any)? > [just to keep banging on a bad analogy :-] My guess is that they would > go to the one that is "cool" (whatever is cool at the moment). If the > one that is not free is the one where the "cool" crowd hangs out, they > will pay. And you will have a free but empty clubhouse (well, not really > empty, a few geeks will be there talking about cool software... and yes, > I would end up there as well :-). Of course it might also happen that > the cool clubhouse is the one that is free, but don't take that as a > given. Good point. However, the concept of "cool" from this analogy obviously in the world of software is directly related to the cost and the power of an app, apache being a perfect example of that. Hence, we already have a great advantage in that respect (the power being obviously perpetually evolving aspect that hopefully increases with the continuous development of an app), and with the inflow of funds from places that have plenty of it (not from paypal donations from other poor student Linux geeks), the development should also take a faster pace because people could make even the living off of such development, needless to mention that the whole concept would be perceived a lot more favorably among the corporate clientele (perhaps potentially profitable world == better hw vendor support == better Linux end-user experience). > Anyway, I don't think acceptance of the os will ever come from twisting > arms. Agree. But... (you knew that was coming :-) putting an affordable pricetag on a (for instance) pro-tools alternative such as Ardour would be hardly calling it "twisting" arms. I am not talking here about excessive prices, but rather shareware price ranges (obviously depending on the nature and scope of the software), that is enough to still greatly help the inflow of money for the development purposes, while ensuring competitive if not ludicrously cheap prices (when compared to the alternatives). Besides, if anyone wants it for free, they can simply install Linux and run it on their boxes free-of-charge regardless of their hw. This is really not even close to the monopolistic tactics of companies such as M$ and Apple. > Users will use the os that meets their need. Actually, most users > will use the os that comes with the machine they bought. Well, with the increased funding and therefore development, comes increased user-base, and with that better vendor support. All that amounts to increased presence of pre-installed Linux boxes. It's a closed circle that is tough to penetrate, but once in the loop, it becomes a lot simpler. > Tying the use > of a free cool app to running it in the free operating system so that > users will switch will not work (I think). If the os they use does not > come with the coolest tools (BTW, their idea of cool may be different > from ours), and they are not available in "free" versions because of > licensing issues they will just not use them and will use whatever else > is available (free or not). Th
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux fromproprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 22 Juin 2003 13:46, Ivica Bukvic a écrit : > Again, please read what I've stated and then respond. I am not > advocating the change of GPL, but creating a new derived license which > simply ensures that the efforts of the open-source community primarily > benefit (gasp!) us, the open-source community, not some company with > monopolistic agenda, regardless how successful (Msft) or unsuccessful > they are (Apple). Guess what: your derived license would be incompatible with the GPL or any OSI license. You don't understand what free software is. Including free software within closed source software is wrong, but allowing free software to run on any platform is good, as long as the source code is released. The restrictions imposed by the GPL are meant to make sure that derived works are released with the source code. M$ and Apple always included free softwares in their operating systems, but they often (always in the case of M$) "forgot" to release the source code of their modifications. What they're doing is wrong, but the free software community would be stupid to play their game by restricting usage of free software to free operating systems. > Being "elitist" towards outsiders who express even a mild interest in > the Linux/oss community will repel them before they even get a chance > to taste the good aspects of Linux. Are you stating that I'm elitist because I use command line tools? I never agreed with gui users that believe their tools are easier and better for ordinary people. These tools are sometimes so complicated and badly designed that the only reasonable command to use is "quit". As much as you think they should use a gui because you believe they can't use anything else, I think ordinary people should use free command line tools because they can. Text is not elitist, and it's still the easiest and most powerful intellectual technology. Have you ever tried to reduce a bunch of images (let's say 1) with Photoshop? It's much easier and efficient with the ImageMagick command line tools. Am I elitist because I use a better (and free) tool which happens to be text based? I may be part of an elite, but I'm not requiring anybody to use the same free tools as me. Even M$ uses ImageMagick in their Office suite, but they charge a fortune to include this free tool in a closed source product. That's wrong, and that's why I believe ordinary people should learn to use free tools the "elite" way. I don't care about Linux. I care about free software. I don't care if the Linux kernel runs on proprietary hardware, like I don't care if a free software runs on top of a proprietary OS. I'd much prefer that everything, from the silicon chip to the gui tools were made entirely free, but since I must choose, I prefer that free software be allowed to run on top of non-free software. The free software movement is not purist, it's trying to make this world better by rational and ethical means. Hopefully, at some point, most of the computing chain will be free, including the hardware. - -- Marc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9juVQdzoeKQ0PccRAmRHAJ403MJ59YlMlq7KBKqfkuIGPX7EuACcCJOT /c4wsrsDUzGP7I6369MHjII= =flAg -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 05:52:47PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
> Software would remain open-source. But the assumption is if you are
> willing to part with the freedoms Linux and other GNU OS's offer, and
> [...]
> I disagree. It penalizes the company so that it cannot claim that it is
> Unix-like environment when it does not run (albeit for licensing
> reasons) Unix software.
that sounds suspiciously like a marginal effect.
i know the open group certifies os's as unix, who certifies them as
unix-like? does that mean they would be unix-like-like if they
couldn't get unix-like certification? (and really, they can (and will)
claim whatever they like).
it has only been very recently that software from one unix could even
be run on another without porting (recompiled or not) and only because
of bend-over-backwards-to-make-it-work solutions like autotools. unix
as a class was (and is) defined as much by its mutual
incompatibilities as anything else. luckily we have mac os <= 9 and
windows to say "well it's not one of those".
> You are mixing two notions: popularity of free software vs. popularity
> of _free OS_. Two are not the same.
why the preoccupation with operating systems? why stop there when
greed and avarice so clearly motivates intel and amd and the other
major chip manufacturers? why should we allow them to support intel
and amd *and* use our software?
once we solve that problem what is next on the agenda? this would be a
fantastic ploy: get everyone to depend on some app and then when they
least suspect have the next version of the software include a license
that requires one of the following: be a good country, stop war, stop
hunger, buy you an icecream sandwhich, or a hojillion bucks (in small
bills near the trashcan).
> But even if they get in contact with the oss as you pointed out, my
> personal experience has taught me that they do not say "cool app, let me
> switch to the oss OS." Rather, they say, "cool app, let's download more"
> since it obviously works just fine on their OS and there is no need to
> use Linux or any other oss OS. Hence, there is no benefit in it for
> Linux.
what is the purpose of converting everyone to Linux (or any other oss
OS)? is it for their own good? for our good? or because you know once
they *understand*, they will be part of the revolution too, and then
we could really stick it to ms and apple? how does that help linux?
linux doesn't in general need more users, it needs more participants
(ie coders, etc).
> With my proposal the schools would realize that with Linux they would
> get both the cheap computer and all the software they needed for free,
> instead of licensing the closed source alternatives. It would be simply
> an economical decision if nothing else.
because they want a unix-like environment? are you sure it's all the
software they need? is it free or free as long as you run the stuff we
say you have to and whatever else we care to think up ?
> > (and if anyone wants to start a company that gives away free audio
> > software and sells hardware, lesson plans, training, and support to
> > k-12 (and especially economically disadvantaged) schools to create
> > hands on music classes count me in. you would probably be eaten alive
> > by good press).
>
> Sorry, you lost me there. I guess you are implying it's a good thing,
> and I concur. However, I do not see how it connects with the stuff
> above.
it clearly doesn't.
but to summarize:
it's a bad idea.
it's morally and ethically questionable (within my value system).
i would not help or promote projects that adopted this license.
if i wanted to use it, it would encourage me to write a workalike that is
free (for my value of free).
but certainly you are free to license your work as you see fit.
rob
Robert Melby
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt4255a
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linuxfrom proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> Software would remain open-source. But the assumption is if you are > willing to part with the freedoms Linux and other GNU OS's offer, and > pay for a costlier system, as well as a bunch of shrink-wrapped apps, > then you might as well pay for the oss apps and help the oss community. > No one would switch to Apache in the first place were it not better than > the closed-source solutions. By the same token if I have a killer audio > app, they would either pay for it for their OS or switch to Linux or any > other oss OS and enjoy the freedom. It's a bit pushy tactics, but that's > exactly what our competition is doing, and doing it rather well. Do we want to _become_ what our "competition" is? I don't think so. I don't like pushy tactics. We are (by some measure) successsfull because we are not like the "competition". > > you don't put a 'no gurls allowed' sign on your clubhouse and then > > complain about how no hot chicks ever show up. (ohhh that was probably > > offensive, but i think it's a fantastic metaphor ... for something). > > Wrong analogy. To use your context (as funny as it seems :-), I would > put 'no gurls allowed without paying' on a clubhouse that has a > covercharge. Then, next to it would be a clubhouse that is free for both > boys and girls. Pop quiz: Where would the girls go? [just to keep banging on a bad analogy :-] My guess is that they would go to the one that is "cool" (whatever is cool at the moment). If the one that is not free is the one where the "cool" crowd hangs out, they will pay. And you will have a free but empty clubhouse (well, not really empty, a few geeks will be there talking about cool software... and yes, I would end up there as well :-). Of course it might also happen that the cool clubhouse is the one that is free, but don't take that as a given. Anyway, I don't think acceptance of the os will ever come from twisting arms. Users will use the os that meets their need. Actually, most users will use the os that comes with the machine they bought. Tying the use of a free cool app to running it in the free operating system so that users will switch will not work (I think). If the os they use does not come with the coolest tools (BTW, their idea of cool may be different from ours), and they are not available in "free" versions because of licensing issues they will just not use them and will use whatever else is available (free or not). -- Fernando
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [Sursound] UHJ live encoding / LADSPA plugin?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:50:39PM +0100, DG Malham wrote: > Not that I know of, yet. > > Dave > > On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, oliver thuns wrote: > > > hello, > > > > i'm looking for a solution to encode an ambisonics signal to 2 channel > > UHJ in real time. is there for example a LADSPA or (linux compatible) > > VST plugin to do this? There's one now, drop me a line if you need it (or if you want to alpha- test it :-) -- Fons
RE: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:46:30PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote: > > > So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific > > > type of operating system? Like M$ does? > > > > Not a _specific_ OS. There are _many_ open-source OS's out there and > > none of them have monopolistic agenda like Apple or M$. Nor do they use > > one theme that permeates much opensource software is user empowerment. > freedom from silly obstacles like per-seat licensing or artificial > technical limits by design or stupidity. because of this, i'd much > rather work with opensource software like gcc or apache, etc than > their closed counterparts even before considering price. Software would remain open-source. But the assumption is if you are willing to part with the freedoms Linux and other GNU OS's offer, and pay for a costlier system, as well as a bunch of shrink-wrapped apps, then you might as well pay for the oss apps and help the oss community. No one would switch to Apache in the first place were it not better than the closed-source solutions. By the same token if I have a killer audio app, they would either pay for it for their OS or switch to Linux or any other oss OS and enjoy the freedom. It's a bit pushy tactics, but that's exactly what our competition is doing, and doing it rather well. > > but this plan does not empower the user. it penalizes the wrong people > (the users) for a marginal effect if any on the company. I disagree. It penalizes the company so that it cannot claim that it is Unix-like environment when it does not run (albeit for licensing reasons) Unix software. if it were > your goal to make free software more popular (and admittedly this > isn't my goal), it would make sense to make lots of free software > available to people on OS X and XP who may not otherwise come in > contact with it. so maybe they'll say, "hey, i got this software for > free and it's neati wonder what else is out there like it?" You are mixing two notions: popularity of free software vs. popularity of _free OS_. Two are not the same. But even if they get in contact with the oss as you pointed out, my personal experience has taught me that they do not say "cool app, let me switch to the oss OS." Rather, they say, "cool app, let's download more" since it obviously works just fine on their OS and there is no need to use Linux or any other oss OS. Hence, there is no benefit in it for Linux. > you don't put a 'no gurls allowed' sign on your clubhouse and then > complain about how no hot chicks ever show up. (ohhh that was probably > offensive, but i think it's a fantastic metaphor ... for something). Wrong analogy. To use your context (as funny as it seems :-), I would put 'no gurls allowed without paying' on a clubhouse that has a covercharge. Then, next to it would be a clubhouse that is free for both boys and girls. Pop quiz: Where would the girls go? > if nothing else think of the children: just because the school system > makes a deal with apple or MS does that mean those kids don't deserve > free software or deserve to make music if their school can't afford 5 > or 10 copies off logic? are they just little closed source satans in > the making waiting in dark places to monopolize your precious bodily > fluids[1]? this could actually mean a substantive even life altering > change by giving them the chance to play with your audio programs. With my proposal the schools would realize that with Linux they would get both the cheap computer and all the software they needed for free, instead of licensing the closed source alternatives. It would be simply an economical decision if nothing else. Hence, no need for weird cult examples of their activities in dark places ;-) > (and if anyone wants to start a company that gives away free audio > software and sells hardware, lesson plans, training, and support to > k-12 (and especially economically disadvantaged) schools to create > hands on music classes count me in. you would probably be eaten alive > by good press). Sorry, you lost me there. I guess you are implying it's a good thing, and I concur. However, I do not see how it connects with the stuff above. Thanks for your insights! Regards, Ico
[linux-audio-dev] Re: [Sursound] UHJ live encoding / LADSPA plugin?
Not that I know of, yet. Dave On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, oliver thuns wrote: > hello, > > i'm looking for a solution to encode an ambisonics signal to 2 channel > UHJ in real time. is there for example a LADSPA or (linux compatible) > VST plugin to do this? > > oliver > > ___ > Sursound mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound >
Re: [linux-audio-dev] 2.5.72 + ALSA + jack == happy monkey
> Hi, > > lördagen den 21 juni 2003 09.18 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Wanted to post a quick success story with the 2.5 kernel series: > > Machine > > processor VIA C3 Ezra > > cpu MHz : 932.918 > > bogomips: 1843.20 > > 256MB ram > > > > Multimedia audio controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233 AC97 Audio > > Controller (rev 50) > > [snip] > > > > I made a few passes at this machine with 2.4, but i could _not get useable > > audio - overwhelmed by pops and crackles. > > Cool that these mini-itx machines actually does work :) > > I was wondering, where you refering to 2.4 as in 2.4+ll+(whatever) > and 2.5 was, infact, performing better? *fingers crossed* Farthest i got with 2.4 was 2.4.21-ck1 (Con Kolivas' rollup of various things) Everything 2.5 past 2.5.66 runs better for me than 2.4 on this tiny machine. Plus, with ALSA native in the kernel, i figure i've got a better chance with USB and stuff like that. cliffw > > /Robert > >
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
>I would love to hear from Paul Davis on this issue since he is one of >the most involved contributors in this community when it comes to >monetary dependence. Paul? at the point you wrote this, i was at about mile 142 of a 200 mile bicycle ride through north-western new jersey. i finished 2 hours faster than the last time i did this event, and 2 hours faster than the death valley double in march, and perhaps because of that my brain is somewhat fried. i'll comment when i can think about it without hearing the endless rushing water that accompanied the ride this year (torrential rain for about 36 hours) :)
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:46:30PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
> > So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific
> > type of operating system? Like M$ does?
>
> Not a _specific_ OS. There are _many_ open-source OS's out there and
> none of them have monopolistic agenda like Apple or M$. Nor do they use
one theme that permeates much opensource software is user empowerment.
freedom from silly obstacles like per-seat licensing or artificial
technical limits by design or stupidity. because of this, i'd much
rather work with opensource software like gcc or apache, etc than
their closed counterparts even before considering price.
but this plan does not empower the user. it penalizes the wrong people
(the users) for a marginal effect if any on the company. if it were
your goal to make free software more popular (and admittedly this
isn't my goal), it would make sense to make lots of free software
available to people on OS X and XP who may not otherwise come in
contact with it. so maybe they'll say, "hey, i got this software for
free and it's neati wonder what else is out there like it?"
you don't put a 'no gurls allowed' sign on your clubhouse and then
complain about how no hot chicks ever show up. (ohhh that was probably
offensive, but i think it's a fantastic metaphor ... for something).
if nothing else think of the children: just because the school system
makes a deal with apple or MS does that mean those kids don't deserve
free software or deserve to make music if their school can't afford 5
or 10 copies off logic? are they just little closed source satans in
the making waiting in dark places to monopolize your precious bodily
fluids[1]? this could actually mean a substantive even life altering
change by giving them the chance to play with your audio programs.
(and if anyone wants to start a company that gives away free audio
software and sells hardware, lesson plans, training, and support to
k-12 (and especially economically disadvantaged) schools to create
hands on music classes count me in. you would probably be eaten alive
by good press).
i will take my hyperbole and go home now.
rob
[1] dr. strangelove reference just in case you were wondering.
Robert Melby
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt4255a
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LocalWords: empowerment
RE: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific > type of operating system? Like M$ does? Not a _specific_ OS. There are _many_ open-source OS's out there and none of them have monopolistic agenda like Apple or M$. Nor do they use the open-source community efforts to promote their own commercial products. Hence, having such a distinction would pretty much limit only use of software on primarily these two platforms (and perhaps AIX and SUN (for which there could be a clause added to remedy the exclusion, since IBM is after all a great supporter of the oss community), and SCO's crap for which I could not care less). > This is against the idea of free software. I never heard of a free > software license that restricts the use of a software to a specific type > of operating system, computer of peripheral. Adding this restriction to > the GPL and use double licensing would not make it better, it would make > it non-free. Read the GPL. Here's an excerpt: "Activities other than > copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; > they are outside its scope." Again, please read what I've stated and then respond. I am not advocating the change of GPL, but creating a new derived license which simply ensures that the efforts of the open-source community primarily benefit (gasp!) us, the open-source community, not some company with monopolistic agenda, regardless how successful (Msft) or unsuccessful they are (Apple). IIRC GPL license allows for such provisions (i.e. original developer may choose to restrict the change of the "about" page in their app, and this perfectly fine by the GPL's standards). > So GNU/Linux users are elitists because they can use command line tools? > You sound like a typical elitist Mac user... ;-) Taking one's statement out of the context and making further conclusions upon that statement is not only immature and inflammatory, but it is also plain dumb, smilies or not. It is, however, amusing how you came about to that conclusion since you could not be farther off from the truth than you currently are. Being "elitist" towards outsiders who express even a mild interest in the Linux/oss community will repel them before they even get a chance to taste the good aspects of Linux. I would love to hear from Paul Davis on this issue since he is one of the most involved contributors in this community when it comes to monetary dependence. Paul? Ivica Ico Bukvic, composer & multimedia sculptor http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux fromproprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 22 Juin 2003 07:28, Ivica Bukvic a écrit : > Many of you have pointed out that limiting GPL would hinder the freedom > it stands for. I agree. I never meant to change THE GPL, but rather to > create an offspring GPL-like license that had my suggested restrictions. So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific type of operating system? Like M$ does? > Dual licensing perhaps is the best option at this moment. I feel very > strongly about this since it protects all of our efforts and time > investments in Linux. This is against the idea of free software. I never heard of a free software license that restricts the use of a software to a specific type of operating system, computer of peripheral. Adding this restriction to the GPL and use double licensing would not make it better, it would make it non-free. Read the GPL. Here's an excerpt: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." > I would also suggest to be careful of the "elitist" talk how Linux' > freedom offers less commonly used apps and hence the art of a Linux > user is somehow better than of the others. So GNU/Linux users are elitists because they can use command line tools? You sound like a typical elitist Mac user... ;-) - -- Marc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9bsgQdzoeKQ0PccRApB6AKCDJMIKensIwiQ/E7/bCWx+xw5MCACfciTy klTGGalaRtOonGtMErRSc7w= =+Twm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[linux-audio-dev] Re: linux-audio-dev digest, Vol 1 #519 - 10 msgs
> > Now if you allow your Open Source Applications to be ported to this > > proprietary OSes, you strengthen this behaviour and weaken the Open > > Source Movement. People will get your software but will stick with OSX > > or whatever cause of this called Killerapps. Systems. > > Just to add a bit onto this issue is that we could still support > non-opensource systems, but they would need to purchase the software > (see my other e-mail with the Trolltech as an example). > Please, you guys sound like a government that wants to regulate everything with laws and taxes. If we (the open source movement) let our "enemies" (closed-source businesses) make us behave like them, we have lost. A more creative approach would be to make a good OSX emulator (inverse Darwin) which lets those people run their killer apps under Linux. And by the way, isn't someone who uses and contributes to open-source apps under OSX/Solaris/etc still a part of the open source movement?
RE: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-audio-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik de Castro Lopo > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:29 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux > from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?] > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:16:52 -0400 > "Ivica Bukvic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I really don't see this as a problem. > > > > Do you mind saying why? > > Well people using libsndfile means that there are less people rolling > their own buggy implementations. This eventually means that libsndfile > has to handle fewer broken files due to someone else's buggy > implementation. > > But th emain reason is that most audio software requires a GUI. Any > program > that is Linux based will have an X11 GUI (at least to start with). On OSX > that GUI will always be slower that the Linux version. On mailing lists > for this software people will be told again and again that the performance > on Linux is better and sooner or later will want to try the real thing. I'll try to respond to many e-mails in one giant swoop :-). So here we go: But this might very soon become a non-issue. This has been a fact so far because G3 and G4 processors blew chunks (contrary to what Apple has been feeding its loyal crowds). G4 1GHz is roughly comparable to a 4-year old PIII 1GHz. However, with the newer chip, if it lives up to its expectations, this will disappear (even if OS X is a resource hog, eventually Apple's CPU's will be able to take it and remain standing on its feet). Many of you have pointed out that limiting GPL would hinder the freedom it stands for. I agree. I never meant to change THE GPL, but rather to create an offspring GPL-like license that had my suggested restrictions. Someone mentioned "if Linux is meant to die, let it die". I completely disagree with this philosophy, because if that happens, and let's say theoretically other Unices go out of business, and we end up being forced to use, for instance OS X, then we would enter the era of indirect monopoly and all that GPL philosophy would not mean squat when we'll still be forced to use proprietary OS/Hw. Dual licensing perhaps is the best option at this moment. I feel very strongly about this since it protects all of our efforts and time investments in Linux. I would also suggest to be careful of the "elitist" talk how Linux' freedom offers less commonly used apps and hence the art of a Linux user is somehow better than of the others. A race car driver is undisputably better driver than I am (at least when it comes to racing, that is), but in order to be better he does not necessarily need to be a better mechanic than I am, right? That being said, I do agree that the tools we use help shape our art and in that way do affect the appearance of our art. I would just warn that not everyone is prepared to roll-up their sleeves hacking stuff, just in order to do a simple cross-fade two soundfiles. After all, how many ways are there to do this operation, regardless whether an app is oss or not? I guess, what I am saying is that I would love to see the LAD community continue to grow because after all the efforts we've made, I believe that _we_ deserve it (not some other proprietary OS), yet that appears not to be the trend (at least not in the academic circles). Ico
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux Driver for Creamware Luna II
There will be an OSX driver for the Creamware platform. Reverse engieneering will be more realistic then, won't it? Blaze1st
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:16:52 -0400 "Ivica Bukvic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I really don't see this as a problem. > > Do you mind saying why? Well people using libsndfile means that there are less people rolling their own buggy implementations. This eventually means that libsndfile has to handle fewer broken files due to someone else's buggy implementation. But th emain reason is that most audio software requires a GUI. Any program that is Linux based will have an X11 GUI (at least to start with). On OSX that GUI will always be slower that the Linux version. On mailing lists for this software people will be told again and again that the performance on Linux is better and sooner or later will want to try the real thing. Erik -- +---+ Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yes it's valid) +---+ Everything that I've learned about computers I have boiled down into three principles: PC/Windows: You think it won't work, and it won't. Macintosh: You think it will work, but it won't. Unix: You think it won't work, but if you find the right guru, you can make it work.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linuxfrom proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]t
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 10:19:21PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote: >My point exactly :-). >Just to add a bit onto this issue is that we could still support >non-opensource systems, but they would need to purchase the software >(see my other e-mail with the Trolltech as an example). Dual licensing is a better option. But don't change the GPL, please. v
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New powermacs?
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 07:53:38PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote: (cut) >-- a unified and powerful underlying framework. Yet, that is not what >we're working on right now... I noted a lot of Mac OS X projects making use of libsndfile already. The common Unix base is a huge step forward. Now there are 2 mainstream OSs with more or less the same semantics. >Oh well, never mind. I am rambling away... Maybe I am simply >impatient... I'll try to get some R&R this summer, then maybe my outlook >on the whole enchilada will not look so grim :-)... :-) v
Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:22:37PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote: >However this brings up one interesting point/problem. Due to GPL nature >of Linux software, many of our efforts will seamlessly bleed into OS X >world since there are no restrictions as to which platform this software >is run on, and Apple made an explicit move to target open-source >developers and/or users by implementing Darwin and underlying >almost-Unix system. Yep especially since Gentoo/Fink/... announced they would be cooperating. >To me this is a problem. Since, all our efforts and time will not lure >more people to Linux. Rather, our software will (perhaps) become popular >(pro-tools killer or whatever), but not necessarily on a Linux platform. >In the end, we will not reap what we have sown. Users on the OS X will >be theoretically able to run Ardour as much as we will, especially now >that jackd has been ported to OS X. To me, this does not seem right. A port is a port. We have the capability to pinpoint bottlenecks in the kernel, and if its a bug, it will get fixed, provided we yell loud enough. Try that on Mac OS X. Not everything is open in the OS X world. >Perhaps we should make a mended version of GPL that would have exact >permissions like the original GPL license, but in addition would ask >that the software cannot be run on top of proprietary OS. That's not very Free is it ? (cut) >What do you think? Unnecessary. Would take time off from writing these great apps to politics. Let's not get into that. We are free, and so are our users. They should respect the GPL, so we can develop in all freedom. We needn't restrict them to a platform. Remember how angry we would be when forced to use a common platform (even a common *nix distro or even kernel ;). v
