Re: [LAD] Aeolus

Am 19.09.2013 17:50, schrieb IOhannes m zmoelnig:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-09-19 17:18, hermann meyer wrote:
>> Am 19.09.2013 16:50, schrieb IOhannes m zmoelnig:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 2013-09-19 05:31, hermann meyer wrote:
>>>> I'm sad to hear that. :-( Please don't let you lead from the
>>>> things you didn't like, let you lead from the things you like
>>>> instead. I guess then it's necessary to let you know that we
>>>> use /as well/ a fork of your work, the zita-convolver library,
>>>> in the guitarix project. But we leave your copyright untouched,
>>>> and the fork will only come in use, when the user set a
>>>> explicit compile flag. We didn't promote it, or force the fork.
>>>> Ordinary your original code is in use. We do it to use ffmpeg
>>>> instead fftw3 FFT, which perform better on ARM devices.
>>> but this sounds like the perfect opportunity to not do a simple
>>> fork, but to send patches to upstream so fons' aeolus could
>>> support both fftw3 and ffmpeg FFTs. it might be a win-win
>>> situation, where not only more than just the original aeolus
>>> users can profit from fons' work (because you use his code) but
>>> also more than just your users can profit from your work (because
>>> you changes are included into upstream aeolus).
>>>
>> Sorry, you miss-match aeolus and zita-convolver here.
> ah yeah, sorry. pleas do s/aeolus/zita-convolver/g in my answer.
>
>> As well, we didn't "add" ffmpeg support to zita-convolver, we
>> replace fftw3 with ffmpeg, and only use this under special
>> circumstances (ARM support),
> i'm not sure what you mean.
> zita-convolver depends on FFTW3 for doing the FFTs.
> if you "replace fftw3 with ffmpeg", you create modifications to
> zita-convolves to not use fftw3 anymore (in some special
> circumstances), and instead use ffmpeg's FFT (whether as a library or
> statically compiled in).
>
> in any case, this seems to be a substantial change to some parts of
> zita-convolver, so you should definitely add your copyright to the
> files you modified (substantially).

No, a disclaimer in the source tree which clarify this will be enough.
>> we didn't distribute it as "zita-convolver library"
> so?
> it seems that you did distribute it "in some form" (else what are we
> talking about?).
>
> MuseScore doesn't distribute a disfigured version of "Aeolus" in order
> to pile praise upon themselves and/or to denounce fons. they
> distribute "MuseScore" which comes bundled with a version of Aeolus
> that integrates into their system.
> similar goes for Maurizio: he has a project called "oscAeolus" which
> makes it quite clear that it is a derivative of Aeolus (and not the
> real thing itself).

That's why I wrote

> On 2013-09-19 05:31, hermann meyer wrote:
>> .... I guess then it's necessary to let you know that we use/as well/ a
>> fork of your work, the zita-convolver library, in the guitarix
>> project.
we do exactly the same, we modify the source to our needs.
We have done the same with zita-resampler for some time, as long Fons
takes to include the provided patch.

>> No useful patch is available.
> i didn't say that contributing is easy.
> more often than not it requires a lot of work and interaction with
> upstream until you have prepared a patch that can be accepted.
>
> what i did say is that you should make a useful patch available.
This is pretty new, and we have a lot stuff where we are working on. ;-)
I could provide a diff, which shows the changes.

>
> i'd love to see a zita-reverb that performs "ideally" on all platforms
> (and that unfortunately includes ARM-systems by now)
>
>
I'm not aware of any relation between zita-reverb and zita-convolver.

greets
hermann

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Sep 20 04:15:08 2013