Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on control ramping]
From: Sebastien Metrot (meeloo@noos.fr)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 18:50:30 EET
----- Original Message -----
From: <RonKuper@Cakewalk.com>
To: <linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 23 January, 2003 17:30
Subject: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on
control ramping]
> >>>
> In this context it's seems a little ridiculous that the MMA is requiring
> members of the mailing list to sign on with $450.
> <<<
>
> The MMA is a trade association, akin to a standards body like the AES. Do
> you also object to the fact that AES, IEEE, etc, charge membership dues,
and
> that they too hold evolving standards discussions for members only? How
> does the fact that this happens to be _software_ standard mandate that
dues
> be waived?
>
Can you explain to us exactely what the MMA is offering in exchange of this
money? I don't see any cost associated with the need to create an open
plugin system: the only thing need I see is the good will of every one
involved to try and work together for the good of all. Mailling lists cost
nothing to create and just a little bit of administration (sourceforge or
savanah could host it without problems and for free). And I fail to see what
more we need that is so costly.
> >>>
> Applying closed methods of communication, or at least requiring a sum of
> money to be paid to have discussion rights is the equivalent of telling
> us Open Source developers that either you don't understand what we are
> doing and why or you totally disagree with the paradigm we work in.
> <<<
>
> This isn't about being for or against open source, or a lack of
> understanding. This is about recognizing that developing and supporting a
> standard requires legal work, marketing, publications, etc, and that these
> cost money. Call it "old economy" if you must, but if you want to
> interoperate with the major companies in the industry, the MMA is forum
> where they gather, and the MMA has a cost structure associated with it.
>
I totaly disagree here: if Steinberg + MOTU + Cakewalk + Emagic + Plugins
developpers joind hands and decide to use a common standard I see very
little need in marketing and legal work. I think the problems are more
political than anything else and I can understand why steinberg and emagic
(for example) would prefer to hide a standard war behind closed doors
instead of on a public mailling list.
> [2] Design. This will be open to MMA members only. If you want the legal
> protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for
> "stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining. Even some open-source
> developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after
> selling a very small number of units.
>
What protection does the MMA provides?
> [4] Adoption. Once again, private to MMA members only.
>
> IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the commercial companies (many
of
> whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join the MMA, while a
> sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives
us
> 2 standards, and nobody wins.
>
Better keep things really open then don't you think? That's the best way to
keep things on one track.
> -Ron
>
Sebastien
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 18:54:20 EET