Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on control ramping]
From: Paul Davis (paul@linuxaudiosystems.com)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 19:13:33 EET
>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.
antitrust. see below.
> 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.
this is absurdly prejudicial. nobody is forcing any company to
participate in this effort. nobody has given *ANY* indication that
they would rather do this behind closed doors for reasons of
"privacy".
and look: steinberg, emagic, cakewalk and the rest are small
companies. they have spent years working on software, marketing,
hardware, management, and all the usual costs of doing
business. they've employed intelligent, hardworking people to do some
really cool stuff, and as a result have paid for houses, food,
heating, cars, vacations, education, art, music etc. there isn't an
open source audio or MIDI application that can claim this or even get
close to it, and its no small thing either.
nobody could duplicate what they've done in terms of software as a
part time hobby. the only reason there is any serious reason to think
that open source is really a viable option here is that there are some
people (myself for one) who have reached the priviledged position
(albeit temporary) of being able to do this full time without
pay. taking a stance against these companies as though they are idiots
or fools or mean spirited does nothing to advance the promotion of
better living through open source. talking as if there is some secret
agenda or dark motives (even if there are, which is not apparently the
case here) helps no-one and only creates mistrust, or worse. what do
you steinberg or emagic people who might read what you wrote will
think of this group when they read what you just wrote? why would they
want to have anything to do with us, let alone allow us to participate
in a design process, when you are attributing psychological
characteristics to them that you have no reason to believe exist?
these companies have shown us all what can be done with computers and
audio/MIDI. they are now starting to talk about trying to deal with a
significant problem for the domain: multiple plugin APIs. lets try to
stay focused on the positives here, and let the negatives go.
>What protection does the MMA provides?
antitrust, for one thing. a bunch of domain-specific companies getting
together to work out a new standard - what do you think some lawyers
would think of that?
>Better keep things really open then don't you think? That's the best way to
>keep things on one track.
only if there is good reason to believe there will be no "code
forks". i don't see any good reason to believe that here - there would
be many incentives to do so.
for an "open source" example, consider the work that the IETF does
with RFC's and the like.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 19:09:31 EET