On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:42 PM, David Robillard d...@drobilla.net wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:48 +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote:
Thanks Tim, I'll def check it out. What's the difference to a newbie
like
myself between yours and the one in Jack?
Congrats btw, that's awesome that
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 11:44 -0800, Iain Duncan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:42 PM, David Robillard d...@drobilla.net
wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:48 +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote:
Thanks Tim, I'll def check it out. What's the difference
to a newbie like
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:48 +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote:
Thanks Tim, I'll def check it out. What's the difference to a newbie like
myself between yours and the one in Jack?
Congrats btw, that's awesome that your work will be in boost!
the main difference is prbly that the jack
part I need library help with is likely synchronization and
interprocess/interthread communication. ( ie do I use the jack ringbuffer?
Do I look at boost queue implementations? does RAUL have a higher level
convenience ring buffer?
my boost.lockfree library has been accepted and will be
Thanks Tim, I'll def check it out. What's the difference to a newbie like
myself between yours and the one in Jack?
Congrats btw, that's awesome that your work will be in boost!
iain
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Tim Blechmann t...@klingt.org wrote:
part I need library help with is likely
Thanks Tim, I'll def check it out. What's the difference to a newbie like
myself between yours and the one in Jack?
Congrats btw, that's awesome that your work will be in boost!
the main difference is prbly that the jack ringbuffer is plain c and prbly
needs libjack, while boost.lockfree is
Great, I'll likely be a user then! Was planning on using boost whenever
possible anyway.
iain
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Tim Blechmann t...@klingt.org wrote:
Thanks Tim, I'll def check it out. What's the difference to a newbie like
myself between yours and the one in Jack?
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
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
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
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/
___
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Tristan Matthews
le.business...@gmail.comwrote:
FYI, you're well within your rights to earn money from GPL software, see:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Although you are right in the technical sense, I don't agree profiting from
other peoples work
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 11:14:21 AM Harry van Haaren did opine:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Tristan Matthews
le.business...@gmail.comwrote:
FYI, you're well within your rights to earn money from GPL software,
see: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Although you are
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:20:11AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
The GPL still has teeth. However if this reseller is using the profits to
fund improvements and/or bug fixing, AND those patches are being
contributed back, then I have no huge moral problems with it. It may
resemble a wine
On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 04:24:46 PM Fons Adriaensen did opine:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:20:11AM -0500, gene heskett wrote:
The GPL still has teeth. However if this reseller is using the
profits to fund improvements and/or bug fixing, AND those patches are
being contributed back,
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 without paying them seems to be
missing the point of GPL. The way I see it,
2011/11/16 Louigi Verona louigi.ver...@gmail.com:
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 without paying them
I've concidered using it in a couple of my projects, there were two main
reasons for me not to use it:
1. Its more than I need, and more than I understand: While it seems a
fantastic library, I only needed x-thread communication so it was overkill
for the goal at hand. (That said, I long for some
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 22:58 -0800, Iain Duncan wrote:
I found it on Dave's site, but other than that, couldn't find find
much mention of it. Do many people use it? Would it be wise to dig
into RAUL for writing a real time jack app?
Dave, any comments on it?
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:11 +, Harry van Haaren wrote:
I've concidered using it in a couple of my projects, there were two
main reasons for me not to use it:
1. Its more than I need, and more than I understand: While it seems a
fantastic library, I only needed x-thread communication so
If you want to use it but the license is a problem, I can be convinced
to change it to LGPL3+. I simply default to GPL (as IMO everyone
should) in the absence of specific arguments why that is not best in a
given scenario.
It never hurts to ask ;)
That said, the library seems a lot more
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Iain Duncan iainduncanli...@gmail.com wrote:
HI Dave, I would def be more interested in checking it out if it were LGPL
or MIT or somesuch. As I'm sure you know, Csound went LGPL a number of years
ago now, and that definitely increased uptake in the long run.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Paul Davis p...@linuxaudiosystems.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Iain Duncan iainduncanli...@gmail.com
wrote:
HI Dave, I would def be more interested in checking it out if it were
LGPL
or MIT or somesuch. As I'm sure you know, Csound went LGPL
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Robillard d...@drobilla.net wrote:
It never hurts to ask ;)
Yes I suppose your right. I'll note though, that I'd concider myself
hesitant to request an author of GPL software to re-license as LGPL. Its
basically asking mind if *I* earn money from *your*
Harry has a good point. If Dave had solicited opinions on it, I wouldn't
have dreamed of asking! I'd just assume you chose GPL for your reasons and
that they should be respected. =)
Iain
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Harry van Haaren harryhaa...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:38
2011/11/14 Harry van Haaren harryhaa...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, David Robillard d...@drobilla.net wrote:
It never hurts to ask ;)
Yes I suppose your right. I'll note though, that I'd concider myself
hesitant to request an author of GPL software to re-license as LGPL. Its
I found it on Dave's site, but other than that, couldn't find find much
mention of it. Do many people use it? Would it be wise to dig into RAUL for
writing a real time jack app?
Dave, any comments on it?
http://drobilla.net/software/raul/
thanks
iain
46 matches
Mail list logo
