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 - 20:14:41 EET
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com>
To: <linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 23 January, 2003 18:13
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts
on control ramping]
> >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.
>
Good point.
> > 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".
>
Because it just happens in the real world. Just read the OpenGL ARB
proceedings and see for yourself: conflicts of interests just happen every
time! I only took these two companies as an example it could be anybody.
> 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?
>
I never implied any of that. I only repeated what your initial report of the
NAMM gathering said: issues seemed mostly political (steinberg people
thinking that *they* are the standard, Digi not caring to show up, Apple not
showing interest because they have their own solutions, etc..)! And politics
are more than often handled behind closed doors. May be that's even where
the MMA could really be useful: talking the big companies into joining
hands. That's politics. Then should the actual technical work be closed: I
still see no point in doing that.
And just one point: We are talking about Apple/Emagic for exemple here: no
secret agenda? You must be joking! :).
> 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?
>
Good point.
> >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.
>
Maybe because that's just the actual situation: 8 competing standards or so.
Make this one under the "protection" of the MMA doesn't mean that would
prevent anybody to think that XAP was finaly a better idea and try to
promote it instead (again, XAP was just an example).
I was just asking for some answers to my questions, answers didn't have to
be inflamatory. Don't forget that many people here isn't a native english
speaker, may be I didn't use the right vocabulary or whatever but I really
didn't meant my mail to be agressive at all, sorry if you thought it was.
Sebastien
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 20:19:30 EET