On Tuesday 04 August 2009 09:33:22 Nick Bailey wrote:
On Monday 03 Aug 2009 21:29:48 Michael Fisher wrote:
No problem. It's not really fair to put a 'skin' around free software,
call it your own, and then sell it. The only thing I ask is that my
name be left out of the letter that may be
Hallo,
Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about giving
access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to make
your changes available for free.
Huh? I think, you're confusing something here.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknechtf...@footils.org wrote:
Hallo,
Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about giving
access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to make
your
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 11:21:34 Chris Cannam wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknechtf...@footils.org wrote:
Hallo,
Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about
giving access to all gpl-code you
Ray Rashif wrote:
Woohoo..I'm safe. Saffire Pro 10 working well.
FireWire (IEEE 1394): Ricoh Co Ltd R5C832 IEEE 1394 Controller
Good news :). Dunno, but maybe BIOS versions and other issues might have
an effect to this. If so, this might be interesting for
David Robillard wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 20:49 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
Actually the most free software development happens in a Do-cracy: The one
who
does the job (or the biggest part of it) gets to decide.
and the rest complain on mailing lists :)
Please try to
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 23:16 +0300, Stefan Kost wrote:
This testing is great stuff. It would be cool to have a buildbot
(http://buildbot.net) and run this regularly. Ideally test-tools would be part
of ladspa/lv2 sdk and the plugin-packages add running the test tools as part
of
make check.
On 4 Aug 2009, at 09:32, Arnold Krille wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk
about giving
access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you
have to make
your changes available for free.
So if they just use the plugins without any
On 4 Aug 2009, at 10:21, Chris Cannam wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Frank Barknechtf...@footils.org
wrote:
Hallo,
Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk
about giving
access to all gpl-code you use.
On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote:
I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many
years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not infect the host
with their licence.
There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and
loadtime linking.
D'oh. I
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Steve Harrisst...@plugin.org.uk wrote:
On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote:
I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many
years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not infect the host
with their licence.
There used to be a
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:43:34AM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
Arnold Krille hat gesagt: // Arnold Krille wrote:
Please be aware that (last time I checked) the gpl doesn't talk about
giving
access to all gpl-code you use. Only if you change something you have to
make
Hallo,
Forest Bond hat gesagt: // Forest Bond wrote:
Question:
If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point to the
GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or something)?
I don't think it's sufficient.
Hi Forest,
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Forest Bond wrote:
Question:
If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point
to the GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or
something)?
No.
The GPL sez (section 3):
If distribution of executable or object code
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Forest Bondfor...@alittletooquiet.net wrote:
If you are distributing unmodified GPL code, is it sufficient to point to the
GPL project's source code (a link to the release page or something)?
No. You can offer to provide the code only on request (section 3b),
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 12:59 +0100, Damon Chaplin wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 23:16 +0300, Stefan Kost wrote:
This testing is great stuff. It would be cool to have a buildbot
(http://buildbot.net) and run this regularly. Ideally test-tools would be
part
of ladspa/lv2 sdk and the
On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:
Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release
their source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing
(TM). I hope the LADs agree
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Dr Nicholas J
Baileyn.j.bai...@elec.gla.ac.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
- Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
version of ladpsa.h, as some people
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd. In real life, a court faced with a
No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL...
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Gabriel M.
Beddingfieldgabr...@teuton.org wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd.
Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.
How can a user comply with the GPL or violate the GPL? A user is just
using applications.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
You're right Harry.
I succumbed to the temptation to reach to more people at the same time :).
I'm replying on LAD.
//On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes
2009/8/3, harryhaa...@gmail.com harryhaa...@gmail.com:
Hey,
Just to say, I think this is mainly related to
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:
Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release
their
source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing (TM). I
hope the
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd. In real life, a court faced with a
No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL...
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, David Robillardd...@drobilla.net wrote:
GPL crosses the plugin barrier if they live in the same address space
and call each other / share data, etc:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
(That's the bit I meant by convenient
Maybe I should start with the Alsaseq python package and HelperMudule,
but I would like to have Jack MIDI so I'll give MidiDings a try.
But remembering the field Midi driver on Qjackctl config I wonder,
if it is set to alsa_seq you can see AlsaMidi ports on JackMidi tab,
could it be better to
Really good info, Hernan. Thanks.
Just a question, given the names of both, does it mean that pyPortMidi
is not for RT?
P.S. Nice to write to you again -on other list this time :).
//On my mobile device. Sorry for top-posting and any mistakes
2009/8/4, Hernán Ordiales hordia...@gmail.com:
Hi
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
effectively copying it, but it seems like a _really_ murky area to me.
Not one that I'd ever really considered. It doesn't seem all that
plausible, but do you think this view is widely accepted?
Yes, I think that it is widely accepted that this is a
GPL Violation Alert! - I talked with the President of Beat Kangz today his
name is A.J. and he is a sweetheart and his head is on straight.
He is currently going to work on an official statement and he wants to
embrace and thank the developers and give the authors credit on their
software and
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
This would obviously be absurd. In real
Hi,
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
GPL) software.
Everybody,
Good. I wasn't really trying to get Beat Kangz in trouble or anything
like that. More than anything I was just disappointed to see that these
LADSPA plugins were being distributed with their software with not a
single mention of credit to the actual developers. As a computer
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:46 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Arnold Krillearn...@arnoldarts.de wrote:
And I always wonder how Trolltech would enforce people to not use the GPL-
version to start development and only buy a commercial license shortly before
publishing ones own app for money. They actually can't because the
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Sampo Savolainenv...@iki.fi wrote:
There's also another aspect. Company A might sell a GPL license for
their software X to company B. They might want to do this as X uses or
is based on GPL'd code. This means X needs to be licensed under the GPL.
A is not
Interesting stuff, espcially when you consider that but a week or 2
ago, another chap from a university, who was unaware of the
implications of the GPL, got nailed for not releasing his code as per
a strict definition of the GPL, and took a lot of sustained abuse for
it as a result. He's moved
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Sampo Savolainen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones
making the violation. You have to give special permission to do this:
Hi,
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 22:11:40 you wrote:
It's a very strange condition I think, and one with countless
ambiguities: can you reuse code you previously wrote for a completely
separate open source project but own copyright to?
Actually you can. If you have to copyright, you can
On Monday 03 of August 2009 23:06:34 harryhaa...@gmail.com wrote:
And on the topic for a second, python bindings exist for MidiDings, a
module that can use both AlsaSeq Jack Midi.
I have a very limited amound of experince with it, as i found the
AlsaSeq python package to be much simpler to
Hello all,
I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
machine to be used for audio processing (and running
Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
essential.
What would you recommend to look at ?
TIA,
--
FA
Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.
Hi,
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Robin Gareus wrote:
There seem to be several archives of this list:
http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/
The original LAD list until 2002 server. Since then, they keep
backup-copies of all list emails; subscription there is no longer possible.
well, to be precise,
Arnold Krille wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 21:23:20 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I distribute the combination as
alex stone wrote:
Call me cynical, and the plugin authors certainly have the last say,
but there seems to be a rather large dose of hypocrisy going on
here
In the last days we simply became wiser. Learning isn't Pecksniffery.
___
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
machine to be used for audio processing (and running
Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
essential.
What would you recommend to look at ?
if noise is not a problem, no problem. if it is,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Carlos
Sanchiavedrazcsanche...@gmail.com wrote:
Really good info, Hernan. Thanks.
Just a question, given the names of both, does it mean that pyPortMidi
is not for RT?
no, they are just names, both are realtime capable...
P.S. Nice to write to you again -on
Hi,
I have been using an asus board with intel core quad cpu q6600 for about
a year now with no hassles.
Does have a fairly noisy fan but I haven't actually looked into
replacing it with a quieter system.
I have found asus boards to be very compatible with Linux and especially
my audio needs
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:52:23 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Hello all,
I'm looking for a high performance (e.g. quad core)
machine to be used for audio processing (and running
Linux of course). Rack mount is preferred but not
essential.
What would you recommend to look at ?
I had been
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:39 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Hi,
I have been using an asus board with intel core quad cpu q6600 for about
a year now with no hassles.
Ditto. Same CPU on a Asus P5E-VM HDMI
-dr
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
48 matches
Mail list logo
