On 11/16/2011 07:15 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
This is why I see any licenses that limit distribution and usage of
creative work as undesirable and unfounded. Even things like GPL and CC
seem to me like just lesser evil, as it still assumes that the author of
the work can be considered an owner of
On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 03:13:06 AM Louigi Verona did opine:
Hey guys!
I'd like to chime in here.
No disrespect meant to anyone and to anyone's work, but the phrase along
the lines of there are a lot of people around who think it's perfectly
ok to make money by using work of others
Hey!
I agree with most of the things you say. So all I have to do is just make my
point a little bit more clear.
GPL is necessary in the world of copyright. It is, thus, founded in this
sense.
The copyright claim in itself - that ideas can be property - is unfounded.
The general claim - that
Thanks for replying.
Allow me to comment on a few things.
The concept of property just is artificial in general.
All ideas and concepts are artificial in a way, however the concepts of
property are based on an inescapable property of things
to be scarce. It has very little to do with selfishness
On 11/16/2011 10:57 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
In a capitalistic society, it should be possible to earn money by
investing your time and effort in producing things people need/want.
People being paid for their time and effort directly may be preferable.
There's still a need/use for copyright to
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:15:31AM +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
No disrespect meant to anyone and to anyone's work, but the phrase along
the lines of there are a lot of people around who think it's perfectly ok
to make money by using work of others without paying them seems to be
missing the
Hey Fons!
I agree with the fact that your code took lots of time, effort and knowledge
to write. I would however question the obligation of other people to pay you
unless before making your work available to them you have made a contract
with them, in which case this is just work for hire.
If, I
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:28:53PM +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
I agree with the fact that your code took lots of time, effort and knowledge
to write. I would however question the obligation of other people to pay you
unless before making your work available to them you have made a contract
It is available publicly *under some conditions* which are expressed
by the GPL in this case.
Correct. Which is only possible because we are bound by copyright law,
a meta-contract, if you wish.
Go to whatever shop. Everything displayed there is 'available'
and was made before any particular
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, at 10.57.47, Louigi Verona
louigi.ver...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for replying.
Allow me to comment on a few things.
The concept of property just is artificial in general.
All ideas and concepts are artificial in a way, however the concepts of
property are
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 11:16:51, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:40:36PM +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
The reason for turning something into proprietary
is money.
Not necessarily. To be more general - the reason to turn something into
proprietary is to have
Hey David!
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I think you have raised
interesting points.
I would begin by asking you a question though.
However, if just any business was legally allowed take anyone's
intellectual
property and make money off of it, paying no royalties or anything,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:47:05PM +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
Now, imagine that all of those things can be copied at no cost whatsoever
and that they are available everywhere, even outside the shop. Would you
agree that in such a case the situation is different and deserves a
different line
This is true even of many physical goods.
No, this is not true with physical goods. I know of no physical good
that has same properties as ideas. A comparison to a car is not
appropriate. A car is a scarce resource.
Even if the cost of making a copy is trivial, someone still needs
to make the
On Wednesday 16 November 2011, at 14.32.23, Louigi Verona
louigi.ver...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey David!
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I think you have raised
interesting points.
I would begin by asking you a question though.
However, if just any business was legally allowed
Le Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:32:58 +0100,
Thorsten Wilms t...@freenet.de a écrit :
I'm not a fan of capitalism and even less so of long work-days, but
it's hard to even think of a better system that takes human nature
into account, to not even speak of establishing one.
Fpr me, the problem is
Am Mittwoch, den 16.11.2011, 15:47 +0100 schrieb David Olofson:
--
I didn't have read the complete thread, in fact, it is to much for me.
sorry ;-)
But what I read is all about money an Capitalism, . . and I like to
comment on it.
Well, for me, that didn't have anything to do with GPL.
GPL
One of the principal problem with capitalism is
that the goal is the economy itself. So, in practice, the society
doesn't have any goal and our work doesn't have any meaning, at the
exception of archiving a goal that is not a goal but a tool.
Actually, this is something I can relate to. I don't
The bottom line here, for this paragraph, is that if you don't like the
license terms, you are perfectly free to write your own version of the
wheel, just do it in a clean room, you cannot have ever seen a copy of that
source code. If, OTOH, you are not capable of doing that, and the only way
Hey,
Small tutorial here that writes integers into a ringbuffer, and the JACK
thread reads them out:
http://harryhaaren.blogspot.com/2011/11/tutorial-jack-ringbuffers.html
Comments / improvements welcomed! -Harry
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Still curious about RAUL. As i have no immediate plans beyond learning how
to write proper audio app, even if license restrictions prevent from using
RAUL in a hypothetical commercial product years down the road, it may well
be worth me using for my own personal needs in the meantime.
Would love
Thanks! Did you just write it? I'll go through it in the next few days and
can send comments if you want help making it more accessible/understandable
to the student
much appreciated Harry!
Iain
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Harry van Haaren harryhaa...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey,
Small
On , Iain Duncan iainduncanli...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! Did you just write it?
Yup. As in literally just there. And I was reading your post in the new
RAUL thread as you were typing that :D
All the best, -Harry
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
The bottom line here, for this paragraph, is that if you don't like the
license terms, you are perfectly free to write your own version of the
wheel, just do it in a clean room, you cannot have ever seen a copy of that
source code. If, OTOH, you are not capable of doing that, and the only way
I think there is also a demo in the libsndfile sources that uses a jack
ringbuffer to play an audio file.
On 11/16/2011 01:16 PM, harryhaa...@gmail.com wrote:
On , Iain Duncan iainduncanli...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks! Did you just write it?
Yup. As in literally just there. And I was reading
Le Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:40:56 +0300,
Louigi Verona louigi.ver...@gmail.com a écrit :
One of the principal problem with capitalism is
that the goal is the economy itself. So, in practice, the society
doesn't have any goal and our work doesn't have any meaning, at the
exception of archiving a
Hey fellas!
Since we turned this topic into an IP debate, maybe we should rename the
conversation?
The original poster had to open another topic dedicated actually to Raul
itself, not IP )))
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
___
27 matches
Mail list logo
