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
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
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
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
There will be an OSX driver for the Creamware platform.
Reverse engieneering will be more realistic then, won't it?
Blaze1st
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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,
18 matches
Mail list logo
