Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Chris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
>>> Was PD previously under GPL?
>> No.
>
> Frank explained to me that Pd-extended is under GPL. I have to go
> back and revise the package I created,
On 3/28/07, Chris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:50:11PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > You can embed Pd into a proprietary software
> > and apart from telling, that you did so, you have no further
> > obligations (that's why Max can use parts of Pd inside). Wi
On 3/28/07, Chris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> > Was PD previously under GPL?
>
> No.
Frank explained to me that Pd-extended is under GPL. I have to go
back and revise the package I created, if only to add the Berkley
lic
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 10:50:11PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> You can embed Pd into a proprietary software
> and apart from telling, that you did so, you have no further
> obligations (that's why Max can use parts of Pd inside). With Csound
> this is not allowed
I must disagree with this; I t
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> Was PD previously under GPL?
No.
> So after software has been released under a license, it is possible to
> retroactively change the license? Sounds strange to me.
If you are the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want. In
Was PD previously under GPL? I published my Pd patch together with
copies of Pd, zexy, cyclone, and toxy, and the only license file I
could find in my Pd folder was GPL.
I meant this in exactly the sense you are saying, but I wasn't aware
Pd was under the Berkley License.
So after software has be
Hallo,
Chuckk Hubbard hat gesagt: // Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> I believe Csound is under LGPL, and if I understand correctly the main
> difference is that people who use parts of it in commercial
> applications are not required to keep their source open.
> Someone else will know better, but to my un
On 3/27/07, adam armfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Something I feel very strongly about though, are
> there
> >still 'licensing issues' with Csound or has it shaken
> >off
> >all it's encumberances and become a totally free OS
> >codebase?
> --
>
> i heard john ffitch (head
>Something I feel very strongly about though, are
there
>still 'licensing issues' with Csound or has it shaken
>off
>all it's encumberances and become a totally free OS
>codebase?
--
i heard john ffitch (head csound bloke, and a
professor at bath uni) do a talk a couple of year
I believe Csound is under LGPL, and if I understand correctly the main
difference is that people who use parts of it in commercial
applications are not required to keep their source open.
Someone else will know better, but to my understanding that makes
Csound more open than Pd.
-Chuckk
On 3/28/0
I'd love to hear work that comes out of a combination of
Csound and Pd I think both are great, just different.
Something I feel very strongly about though, are there
still 'licensing issues' with Csound or has it shaken off
all it's encumberances and become a totally free OS
codebase?
On Tue,
On 3/27/07, IOhannes m zmoelnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> > Pd people continue to ignore Csound, and Csound people continue to
> > ignore Pd, despite the great power of combining them. I can't help
> > feeling like this is a symptom of being more interested in some
> > i
once a guy called pei posted his external on this list:
http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2005-01/025559.html
i think, it is worth trying it.
roman
On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 08:34 -0700, Isidro Gonzalez wrote:
> Hi.
> I am looking for PD objects and/or abstractions
> to do HRTF filtering
Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> Pd people continue to ignore Csound, and Csound people continue to
> ignore Pd, despite the great power of combining them. I can't help
> feeling like this is a symptom of being more interested in some
> intellectual problem than in using all of the available tools to make
Pd people continue to ignore Csound, and Csound people continue to
ignore Pd, despite the great power of combining them. I can't help
feeling like this is a symptom of being more interested in some
intellectual problem than in using all of the available tools to make
music. Not seeing the forest
Hi!
Isidro Gonzalez wrote:
> Hi.
> I am looking for PD objects and/or abstractions
> to do HRTF filtering.
> Any ideas on where to get them?
Take two FIR~s (from IEMlib, one for each ear), load the head related
impulse responses as filters in the tables and filter a monaural signal.
The only pr
I am not sure if that works too, but what about partconv~ . shouldnt
it be possible with that too ?
You have to build a lot around it i guess
luigi
Am 20.03.2007 um 17:03 schrieb Georg Holzmann:
> Hallo!
>
>> I am looking for PD objects and/or abstractions
>> to do HRTF filtering.
>> Any id
Hallo!
> I am looking for PD objects and/or abstractions
> to do HRTF filtering.
> Any ideas on where to get them?
2 possibilities:
- use the earplug~ external (in cvs/externals/earplug~)
- use binaural ambisonic
I am just making some workshop patches on how to do that for the linux
audio confe
Interesting idea.
Only thing I could suggest would be to use Csound with Pd's csoundapi~
object. You could totally set up an interface for setting angles and
stuff with GEM, then relay the HRTF info to Csound. It would be
pretty awesome. I wouldn't know where to start trying to set up HRTF
just
Hi.
I am looking for PD objects and/or abstractions
to do HRTF filtering.
Any ideas on where to get them?
Thanks
Isi
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tool
20 matches
Mail list logo