Re: [LAD] aBLETON lINK

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey <
> pshirkey@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest
>> parts
>> >>> of
>> >>> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo).
>> >> What?
>> >>
>> >> I repeat: that's not an innovation.
>> >
>> > Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation?
>> >
>> > Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link
>> is
>> > momentum behind it, along with the apple-style dictated protocol: take
>> > it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design
>> > discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and
>> more
>> > like a floss-like benevolent dictator style (think jack, or LV2).
>> >
>> > The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually
>> does
>> > closed-source proprietary software publishes an API and reference
>> > implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too.
>> >
>> > That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that!
>> >
>> > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it,
>> > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the
>> > hard part.
>> >
>>
>> Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source
>> projects leading the field in other markets.
>>
>
> There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user
> visible software applications.
>
> And in terms of non-end-user visible software applications, Linux has
> permeated just as deeply into pro audio as anywhere else (perhaps even
> more
> so).
>
>
>
>>
>> There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes
>> contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without
>> having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights.
>>
>
> No matter what Ableton or anyone may or may not write, you cannot release
> something under GPLv2 and retain "explicit ownership/control", and
> branding
> rights are of limited value in this domain.
>
>
>
>>
>> Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the
>> Linux
>> Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we
>> still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players?
>>
>
> Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and
> promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority
> of developers and users.
>

If this is correct the trick appears to be having strong brand awareness
and releasing the API on github?

> Do you have any idea how many companies I've interacted who are 100% aware
> of JACK (and maybe even a little in awe of some of what it can do) and may
> even have developed versions of their software that use it, but that
> cannot
> figure out how they could ever deploy them?
>

I don't know how many but if they have gone to the trouble of creating the
port then all they have to do is package and release it. They don't even
really need to invest in marketing it because we do that for them.

The issue is not how to deploy but when to deploy. The generous POV is
that everyone except Harrison is still waiting for the market to "mature".
The cynical POV is that something is actively stopping them from taking
the plunge.

According to some reports it's a good way to make some extra cash money
without having to actually release anything publicly. Just mentioning that
you have a Linux port is enough to get the funds flowing for "alternate"
development priorities.

-- 
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev