if you assume what i'm saying two paragraphs up is in some way
accurate, then it makes sense that you should make software so good
that it will make people want to switch (and once they switch to the
audio software and are happy, motivating a switch to linux is easy).
Well, that's what I am
On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 10:46 AM, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
Not a _specific_ OS. There are _many_ open-source OS's out there and
none of them have monopolistic agenda like Apple or M$. Nor do they use
the open-source community efforts to promote their own commercial
products.
It is important to
How do you think the Linux kernel is being developed so fast?
By enthusiatic developers with enough money to survive.
Wrong. How do you think Linus will now dedicate full-time to developing
kernel, from paypal contributions from other geeks? It's IBM, Redhat,
and many other companies with
It is important to note some of Apple's contributions to the open
source community besides darwin.
Darwin was not developed by Apple. It's originally a project that was
developed on Intel machines. Apple took it on since it had an acceptable
license (BSD).
Several compiler and debugger
On Monday 23 June 2003 13:59, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
However, no one has yet managed to propose an alternative that would
resolve the dilemma that started the whole discussion -- ensuring that
Linux-developed audio software primarily benefits Linux, not a
non-related third-party OS that makes
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:22:37PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
However this brings up one interesting point/problem. Due to GPL nature
of Linux software, many of our efforts will seamlessly bleed into OS X
world since there are no restrictions as to which platform this software
is run on, and Apple
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:16:52 -0400
Ivica Bukvic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I really don't see this as a problem.
Do you mind saying why?
Well people using libsndfile means that there are less people rolling
their own buggy implementations. This eventually means that libsndfile
has to handle
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:46:30PM -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
So basically, you want to restrict the use of a software to a specific
type of operating system? Like M$ 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
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
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
Perhaps we should make a mended version of GPL that would have exact
permissions like the original GPL license, but in addition would ask
that the software cannot be run on top of proprietary OS. This way, we
Sorry, meant to say commercial OS since obviously one could run such
software on OS X
In the end, we will not reap what we have sown. Users on the OS X will
be theoretically able to run Ardour as much as we will, especially now
that jackd has been ported to OS X. To me, this does not seem right.
I guess I don't see it as a problem. Forcing people to use this or that
software
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:22:37 -0400
Ivica Bukvic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks! This really helped me see straight again :-).
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
I really don't see this as a problem.
Do you mind saying why?
The way I see it is it could be possibly because it feels good for a
developer to see that the interest in their creation is increasing
beyond the confines of the original platform, which certainly is good
for the developer as an
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 20:22:37 -0400, Ivica Bukvic wrote:
Thanks! This really helped me see straight again :-).
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
