Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml .. licensing issues ...
From: Paul Barton-Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2000 - 19:33:26 EET
>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).
I'll tell you what my wish is.
\begin{rant}
Over the last year, I have become increasingly antagonistic towards
existing audio software companies. In essence, I've wasted the last
couple of years of programming time. I've busted my ass doing nothing
but re-writing stuff that they've already done. Why did I have to do
this ? There is no good reason. It happened because those guys think
their source code is a source of wealth. There is the theoretical
problem that they want to make a living (and more) from selling
software and I don't know how you can do this in a niche market with
open source, but that wasn't part of their considerations, I am
sure. They have shown no real signs of porting their code to
Linux. Some of them jumped on the BeOS bandwagon for reasons that are
primarily to do with wealth generation and control. A couple of
hardware-only companies have done the right thing, and helped us get
drivers written for their hardware, but for the most part, closed
source developers' attitude to their work is that its a big secret and
they're keeping it.
Well, those days are going to end soon. They're going to find that the
OS of choice for audio work is one where nobody has any priviledged
access, and they they know a lot less than many of us. They're going
to find that there are plenty of people willing to write software for
reasons unconnected with financial gain, and willing to share the
results. They, like all the other non-custom s/w developers, are soon
going to face the fact that most s/w will soon be a commodity.
And so frankly, I couldn't care less whether they coexist peacefully
or not. If Steinberg, Emacs, MOTU, Creamware and about a dozen others
understood that source code should be open, I could have spent the
last two years improving, extending and enjoying their
software. Instead, I've had to waste my time rediscovering things they
already know, reimplementing things they've already done and generally
doing a bunch of stuff that is a TOTAL FUCKING WASTE OF TIME.
And so now, faced with the possibility that these guys might want to
come and play in our back yard, you want me to turn over my code in a
way that makes it easy for them to carry on with the same game ?
Forget it Benno.
\end{rant}
>If the virtual studio studio API will become reality someday, then
>it will be obvious that the code will be LGPL.
Then it will have to be somebody else's code, not mine.
>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"
Yes, just like Emagic did for EASI. Steinberg don't even the courage
the make the API for VST or ASIO LGPL ...
>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.
Either collectively or individually, they'll either have to do their
own thing, or play the GPL game. Its their choice, and I'm not here to
make life easy for them.
>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.
Have they done this ? Have they enabled *anyone*, even one single
person outside their employees to "contribute to a single codebase" ?
>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 would be an even *better* thing if they were contributing to GPL'ed
audio development libraries.
>I'd like to live in a 100% opensource world too, but that is not
>going to happ en 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.
You're right, we don't have the manpower right now. But I'm not here,
and I doubt that any of the other developers on this list are here, to
do work for people who have not only given us nothing, they've witheld
*everything*. Sorry about that.
>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.
I am not as magnanimous about closed source developers. I am very
happy if someone makes money selling software - I don't care about
price, just open source. If you force me to spend time rediscovering
what you discovered just so you can (maybe) get richer, then I have no
time for you. I am only thankful that Steinberg and Emagic are german
companies, and thus have not patented the wazzoo out of the audio s/w
field.
>BTW: what's the current legal status of LADSPA , can one write closed source
>plugins ?
Its ambiguous. There is no license for ladspa.h at all. This does need
to be cleared up, but I am sure that the intent is that you can indeed
write closed source plugins.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 20:27:00 EET