Re: [LAD] LV2 " isn't well thought out ?" LV2 in the Reaper sequencer

t_w_@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> Dave Phillips wrote:
>
>> So responding with sarcasm, "We'll do it my way or not at all"
>> conditions, and a confrontive attitude qualifies as "the spirit of
>> collaboration" ? Geez, you guys are really winning me over.
>
> It's the good right of Dave and Lars to not care or even outright
> reject closed software. They could have said it more diplomatic
> terms ... but now you make a drama of it.
>
> It could even be that both never claimed to be open minded ;)
>
> Dave puts an incredibly amount of effort into several open projects.
> Why would he go out of his way to help adding capabilities to
> closed software that kinda competes with what he works on?
> Producers of closed software gotta love competition and doing it
> all by themselves.

We do have to keep in mind that we are talking about a LV2 'standard'
here. A standard is generally conceived to make different (competing)
products compatible with each other. Drafting a standard always requires
competitors to work together to find a common middle ground.

The question we should ask ourselves is whether LV2 should be a real
standard, or some sort of 'open-source only' standard.

If it is supposed to be a real standard, the fact that Reaper is not
open source doesn't matter.

Greets,

Pieter
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jan 22 16:15:04 2008