Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux
From: ricktaylor_AT_speakeasy.net
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 23:01:37 EEST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Pickett [mailto:chris.pickett_AT_mail.mcgill.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 05:06 PM
> To: 'A list for linux audio users'
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux
>
> RickTaylor_AT_Speakeasy.Net wrote:
> > On 12-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
> > } Just a clarification: everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly
> > } released into the public domain. That's why these licenses work.
> >
> > I'm familiar with copyrights. :} Artists have been using them since, maybe,
> > before programmers.
>
> You did say, "linux audio... copyrighted stuff to
> pretty much excluded," and later, "Much of that software is
> copyrighted," so I don't think that was particularly unfair.
>
> > } The truncated paragraph said:
> > }
> > } "However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor
> > } lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease
> > } interoperability between programs and flexibility in the system. They
> > } allow for only one box per program, and furthermore make one subscribe
> > } to their whole subsystem of boxes to get something usable. It's like
> > } when Lego started making wall pieces instead of just individual blocks
> > } to build them."
> >
> > You mean like the idea that Jack works with only a select set of programs?
>
> I wasn't aware that Jack not operating with all programs was a
> competitive thing, and involved money or patents or nasty licensing at
> all ... I thought it was because other apps simply hadn't caught up yet.
> I guess I'll have to read about it a bit.
Don't get too serious about it... I just tossed that out as an example. It's probably a bad one. It "is" simply for the sake of discussion. I'm not sugggesting that there's anything evil afoot.
Why do other programs need to "catch up" with a program that's designed to enable them?
> > } I realize the Lego analogy is a little broken.
> > }
> > } Anyway, at the end of the day, if Linux Audio started to need non-free
> > } stuff to be good, I'd just buy a Mac. For me, the core of what makes
> >
> > Linux has always included a large number of non-free programs. If you're
> > obsessive like I am and run around checking out every available program that
> > a given platform has to offer... Linux can include a very large number of
> > traditionally copyrighted and commercial programs. I think linux needs to
> > include a number of large commercial offerings like those solutions provided by
> > Oracle and IBM. {Money... and all of the benefits that might be derived from
> > it.}
>
> I think those kind of things can help corporations who have more money
> than time to throw at a problem, but am unclear as to the benefit that
> the ordinary user derives from them, although it probably exists.
:} Trickle down software economics.
In this case I think it has some basis in fact:
"Sgi has a fairly large corporate structure in place... they devlop software. They have the means to make software that is "Sgi-like" {for lack of a better word.} If they give you their software {which is a unique product of their capabilities, market and experiences.} and you give them yours in return... everyone benefits."
You use their tools to make a buck... you benefit.
You both benefit at different levels.
> > To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important than
> > the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really usable and
> > actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate structure... The
> > idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit dillettante and maybe a bit
> > too high minded and idealistic to be practical. It's simply too open to
> > politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse {even racism... see Elvis} to
> > be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel this way about the internet itself.
> > I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I don't think I am in my feelings about
> > "open source".}
>
> To my knowledge, my system is entirely open source, with the exception
> of acroread and flash, and it runs well. On the desktop, I think
> paid-for corporate involvement can help with unification efforts,
> packaging, and hardware support issues, but that it's better if the
> changes are freed eventually.
I'm thinking that both flash and pdf are pretty nice additions to linux. I don't think the changes can help but be "freed" occasionally. {Regardless of license.}
Maybe we need to specify what we mean by "open source".
> > } the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful
> > } unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free. I think the
> > } reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well
> > } release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified. As for music
> >
> > I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is at
> > the heart of the problem I described above.
>
> I give away free time to F/OSS, and have made less-than-profitable
> career choices (i.e. grad school) so that I could hack on free software,
> why should I be expected to receive with open arms people who want to
> build upon this free base and not give back, let alone _pay_ for it?
Because you made that choice?
> > } shareware developers, frankly I think they'd have a better time writing
> > } for OS X anyway, as a real shareware community actually exists.
> >
> > Then they should just go away?
>
> I think corporations are the only ones really willing to pay for
> individual applications on Linux. I'm personally not shelling out for
> shareware when I can read, test, and contribute to free software. Time
> is money, I guess, and that's how I'd like to pay, even if it costs me
> more after the conversion (which indicates "libre" is more important
> than "gratis" to me). I think other people feel the same way.
I had the impression they have nothing to do with each other
> So, yes, from a business perspective, shareware developers for Linux
> should go away and target OS X instead. From an ethical perspective, as
> long as I'm not forced to use it and there always exist alternatives, I
> guess I don't mind. I start to mind when everybody just uses the
> non-free stuff and this results in the death of otherwise good free
> projects.
>
> Like Tim just said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree,
> since I'm not likely to convince you that 100% free is a good and
> realistic thing, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise (I know
> _I'm_ starting to repeat myself). I hope at least we can see a little
> where the other is coming from now :)
:} Tim's message was first in the queue. I answered this there.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 23:08:39 EEST