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

On 22 Jan 2008, at 12:50, Pieter Palmers wrote:
>
> 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.

That's true, but I don't think Dave R's response was really
unreasonable.

He pointed out that some of the comments didn't really make sense - or
at least weren't clear, suggested a place to discuss technical issues,
and offered to do the porting work should the software become Free.

The tone was a bit abrasive, but so was the tone of the original
message. Suggesting that something a lot of people have put a lot of
thought into isn't "well thought out", based on a limited
understanding, is not a good starting point for a productive
collaboration.

Personally I think it would be great if closed source software adopts
LV2, but I'm also fine with it if they don't think it's appropriate.
Several of the design features stem from advantages and challenges
that we experience in the Free Software world, so it may well not be
ideal for them.

- Steve
_______________________________________________
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