Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml .. licensing issues ...
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2000 - 18:28:05 EET
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> I don't release code under the LGPL. I don't *want* my code used by
> closed source applications. End of story.
>
> If someone is writing a close source application, they'll have to
> write their own backend or use someone's else's non-GPL one. Please
> note that the backend should not be considered a standard. The
> standard here is the XML DTD. Writing a backend for it is a day's work
> for an experienced GUI programmer who has the widgets available.
I respect your choice, but I'm only trying to figuring out what future
scenarios would look like:
Assume that commercial companies will eventually port their software
to linux and that LADSPA , LADSPA-gui become the defacto standard,
accepted by both non-commercial and commercial developers.
Ok, the standard is the XML DTD, but then assuming that it will
evolve over time, it would require that N backends gets adapted to it
(and stay in synch) ,plus every commercial app would need to ship their private
backend stuff. (not that funny having different 5 libs loaded in RAM which
perform almost identical stuff).
These are just the same issues that caused all the problems to the
Qt world.
My wishes are a linux audio platform where both opensource
and commercial apps can coexist peacefully with fully open development
models and libraries. (just as gtk is).
If the virtual studio studio API will become reality someday, then
it will be obvious that the code will be LGPL.
Of course we could say "the API specs are fully open , so Steinberg,
Emagic,<place your commercial firm here> write your own implementation
based on the specs"
But this does not make sense, since this would lead to N different
implementations (possibly closed source, with bugs and with incompatibilites
among the different versions), plus it would not motivate commercial
software manufacturers very much to get into the linux market.
(one of the main hurdles to enter the linux market is that there are almost
no standards in certain areas, plus if there are some, their implementation is
possibly GPLed thus "unusable" by the commercial developer)
It's not about 1-2 days worth of programming time, it's about keeping
a single codebase where everyone can contribute without the
interoperability mess.
(unfortunately we are living in a real world
where the implementations seldom follow the standard with 100% accuracy,
see HTML browsers as an example :-) )
And it would not be a bad thing being able to pool the expertise of the
leading pro-audio software manufacturers by letting them contribute to
LGPLed audio development libraries.
It's your code so you can do what you want with it , but my take is to
place as few barriers or ease as much as possible the migration
from audio apps from the win/mac world to the linux platform,
regardless if the apps are commercial or free.
And commercial companies are certainly not going to sell a ladspa-gui
library to the enduser. (and profit from it)
At max if the lib is LGPL , they will use it, report eventual bugs, enhance
it to suit their needs and contribute the code back to the community.
(which is what the LGPL requires you to do).
And even if the commercial company does not contribute back anything
(to the codebase), by porting its commercial protucts to Linux, it will
help to increase the linux-audio userbase which is IMHO very valuable,
since it will in turn fuel develompent, etc etc.
(I saw similar quotes from Linus where he talked about in what ways closed
source apps running on linux can be beneficial to the whole linux wold )
Paul, I'd like to know what the future linux-audio scenario would look like in
your eyes ? (from the free-apps / commercial app standpoint)
I'd like to live in a 100% opensource world too, but that is not going to happen
anytime soon.
We have simply not the manpower (the knowledge would be less a problem :-) ),
to reproduce all these sophisticated audio apps in existence, so we will live
in a mixed opensource / commercial world for some more time.
The only thing I'm concerned about, is that developers
(regardless of their race, skin color, opensource or commercial nature),
should encounter as few hurdles as possible when developing on the linux audio
platform.
If I'm missing something or if you feel that I have a wrong view of the
opensource world then please let me know.
BTW: what's the current legal status of LADSPA , can one write closed source
plugins ?
PS: I was wondering who of the LAD-ers is more for keeping the audio
development/infrastructure LGPL or who would opt for going GPL ?
(I'm not talking about opensource apps because GPL is the way to go here,
while the LGPL does not make sense in this case )
BTW2: Paul, thanks for the gtk infos I'll look into (time permitting)
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 18:13:34 EET