> fst is already able to load/save chunks.
It sure as heck is.
> i dont have a full version of kontakt, so i cant verify whether
> load/save works.
Seems to work pretty well. I haven't tested it real thorougly, but everything
looks to be in order.
The 1.8 -> 1.9 diff is not large. Wish I kne
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:44:41AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
ok... after some timeout, i am in full effect again.
fst is already able to load/save chunks.
i dont have a full version of kontakt, so i cant verify whether
load/save works.
i guess you guys already know, that you HAVE to use lash to
On Tue, July 4, 2006 18:49, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 09:32 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
>>
>> We already know that the LS license is currently flawed. As Christian
>> wrote explicitly, even thought the README file still has the infamous
>> exception wording, *ALL* public relea
Paul Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 07:48 +0200, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
I have a simple question:
Which companies are (or have been) distributing LinuxSampler as part of
a package also including hardware and/or proprietary software?
as noted liontracs do, and that means that is incumbent
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 09:32 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> On Mon, July 3, 2006 22:55, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:33 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> >>
> >>> If they really want to get people to give money then t
Now, regarding the so-called unclear license of LinuxSampler, why don't
you people just read the FAQ (http://www.linuxsampler.org/faq.html),
having special attention to the very first two questions? and rest relaxed
at least for a while... :)
Don't worry Rui, I will keep on using LS with my band
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 07:48 +0200, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> I have a simple question:
>
> Which companies are (or have been) distributing LinuxSampler as part of
> a package also including hardware and/or proprietary software?
as noted liontracs do, and that means that is incumbent upon me to
st
On Mon, July 3, 2006 22:55, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:33 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>>
>>> If they really want to get people to give money then they should just
>>> make it so that you have to pay or contribute co
On 4 Jul 2006 07:48:43 +0200, Andreas Kuckartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a simple question:
Which companies are (or have been) distributing LinuxSampler as part of
a package also including hardware and/or proprietary software?
Cheers,
Andreas
---
Liontracs do right?
I have a simple question:
Which companies are (or have been) distributing LinuxSampler as part of
a package also including hardware and/or proprietary software?
Cheers,
Andreas
---
Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 10:22 +1000, Ryan Heise wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:55:11PM
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 10:22 +1000, Ryan Heise wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:55:11PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> > both guesses are wrong. i think it will be precise enough to say that a
> > company expressed what appeared to be a serious interest in leveraging
> > the existence of LS for its o
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:55:11PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> both guesses are wrong. i think it will be precise enough to say that a
> company expressed what appeared to be a serious interest in leveraging
> the existence of LS for its own plans. relationships changed between the
> various parties
Dave Robillard wrote:
What IS the license to LinuxSampler? Who knows. They certainly havn't
told us.
Well, They have given us at least three different possibilities...
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:33 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > If they really want to get people to give money then they should just
> > make it so that you have to pay or contribute code/time for a while to
> > get access to the newest downlo
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 23:31 +0200, Lars Luthman wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 03:51 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > It's still entirely legal for others to speculate though... If we ask
> > questions and you don't answer then maybe that's legal too...
> >
> > It seems to me that some company t
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 03:51 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> It's still entirely legal for others to speculate though... If we ask
> questions and you don't answer then maybe that's legal too...
>
> It seems to me that some company tried to use the work done by the LS
> team without giving anythi
Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
If they really want to get people to give money then they should just
make it so that you have to pay or contribute code/time for a while to
get access to the newest downloads from their site. Keep the stable
version f
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> If they really want to get people to give money then they should just
> make it so that you have to pay or contribute code/time for a while to
> get access to the newest downloads from their site. Keep the stable
> version far enough be
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> My apologies, the text is Christian's I forgot an end-quote. Just to be
> complete, here's the entire message, including Matt Flax's original query :
>
> Am Montag, 5. September 2005 04:40 schrieb Matt Fla
Christian wrote:
Unfortunately I haven't found an existing open source license which
would reflect those restrictions. Some even said this wouldn't be an
open source license according to definitions of XY, but personally I
think it would. So maybe we would have to write a new license, like a
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Dave Phillips or Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
[snip]
My apologies, the text is Christian's I forgot an end-quote. Just to be
complete, here's the entire message, including Matt Flax's original query :
Am Montag, 5. September 2005 04:40 schrieb Matt Flax:
Hello,
T
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 10:28 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 15:51 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > > > Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2006-07-0
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 15:51 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > > Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> > > >>> LinuxSampler is not free so
Dave Phillips or Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> Unfortunately I haven't found an existing open source license which
> would reflect those restrictions. Some even said this wouldn't be an
> open source license according to definitions of XY, but personally I
> think it would.
I suggest that you rea
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 08:24 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Something from the source :
>
> Christian Schoenebeck wrote on 9 Sept 2005:
>
> "Anyway, about the mentioned commercial exception in general: you can assume
> all current tarball releases of LS (up to and including 0.3.3) to be under
> p
Something from the source :
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on 9 Sept 2005:
"Anyway, about the mentioned commercial exception in general: you can assume
all current tarball releases of LS (up to and including 0.3.3) to be under
pure GPL. It was already released as pure GPL and is already included
Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>> Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about that infamous
>> exception clause on the README file, "that it may NOT be used in
>> COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
>> authorization by the authors."
>
> I find this threa
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
> To me your behaviour of accusing Dave of plain lying is not
> acceptable. You seem to implicate dishonesty.
I someone states as a fact and without any qualification a
certain interpretation of a text, while knowing very well that
Hi all,
Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about that infamous
exception clause on the README file, "that it may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
I find this thread very interesting, and I'd like to add a r
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:43:06AM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>
> Besides that, DR is broadcasting plain lies. There is nothing in
> the Linuxsampler licence nor in that infamouse README that should
> impede you using it for an album or concert you sell commercially.
He's 'broadcasting' the on
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:43:06AM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> > Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
> > source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
> > Defend the lic
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:43 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> > Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
> > source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
> > Defend the license/ex
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:43 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> > Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
> > source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
> > Defend the license/ex
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
> source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
> Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally
> mislead people about
Indeed. A sampler you can't even use on an album you intend to sell or
in a performance you sell tickets to isn't exactly the most useful thing
in the world.
While the LS license wording undoubtedly admits your interpretation:
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the excep
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:56 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > Lars Luthman wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> >>> Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> >> LinuxSampler is not free softw
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Lars Luthman wrote:
>> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>>> Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
>>
> (sigh, must we, really?)
>>>
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> > Dave Robillard wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> > >>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
> > >>>
> > >> (sigh, must we, real
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> >>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
> >>>
> >> (sigh, must we, really?)
> >>
> >> It depends on who you choose to side with.
>
>
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 20:37 -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying the licensing issues. I think I knew that at some
> point.
>
> What are the odds of changing the FST license to GPL-with-exceptions?
As mentioned earlier, this would also violate the GPL license of LASH,
which I am a
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:41 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Lars Luthman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> >> Dave Robillard wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> > LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
>
Lars Luthman wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
(sigh, must we, really?)
It depends on who you choose to side with.
Forget "
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Dave Robillard wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> >>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
> >>>
> >> (sigh, must we, really?)
> >>
> >> It depends on who you choose to side with.
> >
Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
(sigh, must we, really?)
It depends on who you choose to side with.
Forget "free software" then, I don't mean to start any debate, and
there's no "sides" h
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> > LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
> >
>
> (sigh, must we, really?)
>
> It depends on who you choose to side with.
Forget "free software" then, I don't mean to start any debate, and
there's no "sides" here. Just
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> As defined by the FSF, no, it is not free software. If you use the
> freebeerian definition, "you don't have to pay its authors to use it",
> yes, it is.
>
In the Linux world "free software" means free as in speech. No one uses
"free softw
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> OTOH rumour has it that this may change, not sure in which direction,
> so it may be healthy to be cautious. In the end, there is always the
> possibility of forking version 0.3.3 which is pure GPL and call it
> HurdSoftSampler or SuftSampler
LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
(sigh, must we, really?)
It depends on who you choose to side with.
As defined by the FSF, no, it is not free software. If you use the
freebeerian definition, "you don't have to pay its authors to use it",
yes, it is.
As defined by t
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 15:54 +0100, Robert Ham wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:25:04AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> > As far as I can tell there are two resolutions:
> >
> > 1) someone works on fst to make it save kontakt's state
> > 2) someone writes a free kontakt replacement
>
> 3) someon
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:44:41AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> I'm just not sure if the best way to help free software is to limit
> it's ability to integrate with proprietary software.
Integrating with proprietary software is great; let's have full VST
support. I'm for it. Let's have free soft
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:25:04AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> As far as I can tell there are two resolutions:
>
> 1) someone works on fst to make it save kontakt's state
> 2) someone writes a free kontakt replacement
3) someone makes Linux Sampler do what Kontakt does
It already does bulk of w
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:46:42AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > The issue here is that Mr Bond wants a sampler like Kontakt that works
> > with Linux audio systems and saves its state. The best way to achieve
> > that is to work on a free alternative, eg, Linux Sampler.
>
> In any case, Linux S
soundfont with fluidsynth. What's the problem? You're editing and playing
using two different implementations of the filters, modulation, etc... The two
Wrong, swami uses fluidsynth itself.
are unlikely to sound the same, or even close to the same. Soundfonts weren't
really designed for th
> > In any case, Linux Sampler and Kontakt are
> > different sorts of samplers at this point. Linux Sampler is more in the
> > spirit
> > of Gigasampler, and Kontakt is more like an emulation of a hardware sampler
> > (but
> > vastly more flexible).
>
> The key words there are "at this point."
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 04:03:00PM +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> >This is not about applying reverb to a drum kit. It's about having 6
> >samples
> >triggered when I press a key on the keyboard, and each sample being
> >filtered,
> >pitch bended, saturated differently, and modulating all of those
This is not about applying reverb to a drum kit. It's about having 6 samples
triggered when I press a key on the keyboard, and each sample being filtered,
pitch bended, saturated differently, and modulating all of those parameters
using LFO's, envelopes, and midi parameters. You can't do that us
>You are... Linux sampler doesn't support built-in effects because of what
>working with audio is like under linux. JACK (jack audio connection kit)
>is an application that allows one to manage connection between various
>audio software. This includes linux sampler, but also plugins
> The issue here is that Mr Bond wants a sampler like Kontakt that works
> with Linux audio systems and saves its state. The best way to achieve
> that is to work on a free alternative, eg, Linux Sampler.
I was under the impression that Linux Sampler is undergoing license changes.
Not sure where
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:52:30PM -0700, Thomas Vecchione wrote:
> At least that is my understanding of all of this. As such if all
> projects involved were licensed under the LGPL ... [ Long discussion
> of relicensing ]
[ Hello all. Yes, I am still alive :) ]
The issue here is that Mr Bond
Hmm you may be right if it is kept in a purely binary form, any use with
open source technology with the GPL though would require it not be
distributed as per this section of the licensing terms...
---
The Licensee has no permission to sell, licence, give-away and/or
distribut
> Problem is, even if that did happen(LGPL I believe would cover it?) It
> isnt just the fst license that is the problem. It is Steinberg's
> license on the VST SDK. And chances of THAT license being changed...
> well I wouldnt hold my breath that is for sure;)
I believe changing the fst lice
What are the odds of changing the FST license to GPL-with-exceptions?
Problem is, even if that did happen(LGPL I believe would cover it?) It
isnt just the fst license that is the problem. It is Steinberg's
license on the VST SDK. And chances of THAT license being changed...
well I wouldnt h
Thanks for clarifying the licensing issues. I think I knew that at some point.
What are the odds of changing the FST license to GPL-with-exceptions?
> what parts of the full 2.0 spec are you thinking about?
Ack. You got me; I don't know enough about the spec to have an answer. But
Kontakt doe
On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 18:35 -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> I've been looking at fst, and was going to package it for Ubuntu.
you cannot legally package FST. please do not do this. its not likely
that steinberg will come after you, and neither torben nor I are likely
to either, but its a violation of
Hello everyone,
I don't recall posting here in the past, although I have several hundred LAD
mails in .Mail...
Nice to meet you, anyway.
I've been looking at fst, and was going to package it for Ubuntu. I had used
dssi-vst in the past. My big problem is this: neither of the two save current
s
65 matches
Mail list logo
