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

On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:09 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:15 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
> > >
> > > > But that's really the funny thing here. Your software isn't from the
> > > > free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither
> > > > the free software definition nor the open source definition.
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad that GPLv3 fixes this issue, cause if you state that the
> > > > software is under GPLv3 you may not impose any further restrictions on
> > > > the work, if I read the license correctly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dio mio. Why does this remind me of Revolutionary Guards
> > > rhetoric from the Cultural Revolution era (People's
> > > Republic of China, mid 1960s) ?
> >
> > Because you're trolling? :)
>
> No, it reminds me because of the wording. I guess I've grown to
> be allergic to any statements of the form
>
> "You are not a true Communist/Christian/Moslim/American/..."

So we'd be better off with no definition of "open source" or "free
software" at all?

Obviously not. This has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with "you are
not a true...". Accepted and widely understood licensing blanket terms
are useful (i.e. actually, truly, useful, in the most pragmatic sense
possible). Attacking them and/or misleading people about them does
nothing but harm.

Especially when it's a weak variation of pulling a Godwin ;)

-DR-

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jan 29 04:15:02 2008