Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml .. licensing issues ...
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2000 - 03:44:38 EET
On Sunday 26 November 2000 18:33, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
> >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}
Very good point taken.
Brings me one step closer to the { --LGPL; ++GPL; } operation... At
least.
If they can't cooperate using our cutting edge APIs, we basically
have them chained where we want them in a corner of our back yard.
Where I would like to see them is in the plugin area, selling small,
closed source solutions for less critical parts of the system.
LGPL for the plugin API and GPL for the rest, including the client
API...?
*thinking about various evil anti-closed source tricks* ;-)
> >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.
Maybe MAIA. Then again, maybe not... I have to think more about this.
> >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 ...
Exactly.
> >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.
Right, the primary goal behind our decisions has to be to make life
easier for *us*; users and Free/Open Source developers.
Then again, are we doing that by essentially making our back yard
holy ground, where closed source is strongly discouraged, at best? In
the bigger perspective, does it really matter if we use them to get
some more users over here? We're not after their money anyway!
(Unless they want to sponsor our projects, or buy preconfigured
systems, suport, approved machines and hardware etc.)
> >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"
> ?
I don't know about these companies, but there are examples of
companies actively supporting Free/Open Source projects.
> >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.
Yes, but they can't do that, unless they make their money on
hardware, support or something like that. Small market, but it might
work...
> >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.
And that's about all I think you should be able to do closed source,
actually. Not sure about applications yet, but I can't help agreeing
with Paul in the above to great extent.
//David
.- M u C o S -------------------------. .- David Olofson --------.
| A Free/Open Source | | Audio Hacker |
| Plugin and Integration Standard | | Linux Advocate |
| for | | Open Source Advocate |
| Professional and Consumer | | Singer |
| Multimedia | | Songwriter |
`-----> http://www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' `---> david_AT_linuxdj.com -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 05:51:59 EET