Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux Audio/Music CD: Where things stand now...
From: Michael Gogins (gogins_AT_nyc.pipeline.com)
Date: ti elo 10 1999 - 19:55:29 EDT
Let me emphasize that the download fee for Silence is not a software
license. The source code is pure GPL. You can turn right around and throw
disks of it out the windows of tall buildings and I will not complain.
Let me also emphasize that there is no fee if you do not publish music made
with Silence. You can play with it at home all you like for free. You can
redistribute it all you like for free. If you spend thousands of dollars
putting together a CD using Silence I assume you will not mind paying me
$100.
I simply hate the thought of doing all this work not even receiving any
symbolic or token compensation.
I may change my mind on this, too.
I got into this situation by using Csound for synthesis... I have capitalist
instincts and would naturally want to charge for software... but Csound was
the best thing I could find for my purposes and I could not sell it (or buy
it, for that matter). Music is more important to me than money, so I made
the Silence license the way I did so I could continue to use Csound as part
of my system.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Phillips <dlphilp_AT_bright.net>
To: Paul Winkler <slinkp_AT_ulster.net>; Michael Gogins
<gogins_AT_nyc.pipeline.com>
Cc: LAD Mail <linux-audio-dev_AT_ginette.musique.umontreal.ca>
Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1999 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux Audio/Music CD: Where things stand
now...
>Paul Winkler wrote:
>
>> I was just looking at M. Gogins' license for Silence at:
>> http://www.pipeline.com/~gogins/Silence/Silence.htm#License
>> NOtice that he uses the GPL but then adds a $100 download fee for any
>> "non-personal" useage. Unusual. Would this be a problem? I can't really
>> figure it out. Might be a good idea to write to him before including
>> Silence in anything.
>
>Perhaps Michael could clarify this point for us ? It is an odd rider,
>particularly considering his dedication to providing Silence in a very
>open-source package. He was very quick to remove the proprietary stuff
>from Silence, and that move enabled Silence for Linux (and I assume
>other platforms with Java).
>
>> > and actually a bunch of other small progs.
>>
>> Most notably SoX. Love it or loathe it, it's hard to avoid using SoX!
>
>Yep, gotta have sox...
>
>> ...I'd like to see nearly
>> everything on that list developed a bit further before making a distro
>> out of it. In particular I'd like so see one of the truly-free sequencer
>> projects (not Jazz++) get to a stage of real production useability:
>> working midi input and output, etc. Anyone know when the much-fabled
>> Rosegarden 3.0 might arise? 2.1 looked promising but didn't seem to work
>> very well ... And what's up with Cantor? No new version in a long
>> time...
>
>Rosegarden is in CVS, but at last gander Chris Cannam was in China.
>Projects without leaders tend to languish.
>
>> I was just at a friends' house playing with 303seq on a windoze box.
>> Very fun little proggy. Sort of like SoftWerk only not. Would be a cool
>> thing to clone and/or make obsolete!
>
>Have you played with either freebirth or Green Box ? Nice apps, great
>fun.
>
>== Dave Phillips
>
> http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/index.html
> http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Linux-soundapp/linux_soundapps.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:52 EST