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 - 21:54:23 EET
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>
> \begin{rant}
>
> Over the last year, I have become increasingly antagonistic towards
> existing audio software companies.
.....
I agree about the attitude of most closed-source SW firms
which do not want to share their code and see it as
something that's very valuable.
On the other hand the opensource model implies that
if you want to survive , most of your revenue must come from
services, and I'm not sure if this is viable on the audio market.
I have yet to see where one makes a profit with selling opensource
apps.
Assume that you have to pay for an opensource app:
the manufacturer would not be able to avoid its software being pirated
since it's basically a only bunch of sourcecode files.
(Apart the fact the I see these antipiracy dongles as a big mess for the
enduser since if you install several copyprotected apps, you'll soon
become a dongle-jockey).
How would you avoid that the cool DSP algorithms you developed at
your company, would not be integrated in the ones from the competition
or in opensource apps.
In Europe you cannot (fortunately!) patent algorithms, so no one will
sue me if I copy your cool DSP filter formula.
I believe too that software will become a commodity sooner or later.
(I write apps to provide webbased services for a few ISPs, so what
counts here is the service and not the software itself).
But for certain niche areas like audio, IMHO you have (at least
partially) to live from selling software.
There will be always some people willing to fork out $50-$500 for a
sequencer/HDR app/DSP app.
And this combined with upgrades, manuals phone support etc generates
(for now) a profitable stream.
On the other hand if all leading audio apps were open, each one could
profit from the others improving the overall quality of all apps.
(just as the GPL folks do)
Anyway what about the following proposal:
make the libs we produce GPL, and if a commercial firm wants to use it,
he has to donate some money to the LAD community which
will be used to pay opensource developers, buy HW etc ...
That way the greedy, selfish commercial audio firm could choose
which way to go. (release code or sponsor the linux audio cause)
Probably this model would not not work either, but on the other hand,
as you pointed out, on Linux it is the community that controls the OS, so
being big commercial firm or not does not matter, you have to play by the
opensource rules.
The problem I see is if the GPLed libs will someday face competition from
LGPLed ones.
see Qt vs Gtk: Qt is now 100% GPL but this has not helped them that much
since no closed-source developer (sorry there is still plenty of this sw out
here) wants to depend on a single firm of Norway when doing GUI development
on Linux.
And the ironic thing is that Gtk will prevail over Qt because being LGPL
rather than GPL.
(IBM, Sun and others all invested into Gnome rather than KDE)
We will see what the future will bring us ...
one thing that is certain is that the linux audio will not get "balkanized" by
some big commercial firm.
I'm almost sure that as soon linux becomes commonplace on the desktop
area, audio firms will try exploit this market segment too probably using
their "traditional" business model. (more or less).
(selling closed source apps)
So this culture "clash" will happen at some point, and we must pay
attention to make this painless for both endusers and developers,
without ending up in the "dozen-of-proprietary-APIs and
interoperability" scenario again.
Paul I support your view of opensource, but on the other hand if Linus
had not given his permission to run commercial apps on the linux kernel,
then I doubt that it would have gone that far.
(Oracle gave back nothing so they do not deserve to run on Linux :-) )
(and stock symbols like RHAT and LNUX would not exist in first place)
And although some opensource developers may feel "ripped-off" because these
companies profit from their work, these companies have given back
to the community quite alot.
So perhaps we should take Linus' attitude in the linux-audio field since this
has proven to be viable over the longterm.
I'd like to hear from other LADers too, just to see what the general view on
these issues look like.
Anyway with all these closed-source talks,
I hope that I can contribute to render a "certain" closed-source app
obsolete by an opensource one named after a 3-letter word.
Benno.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 26 2000 - 22:50:29 EET