Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] (OSS vs. RME) vs. (OSS + RME) [slightly OT]
From: vord (vordhosbn_AT_gmail.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 07:29:02 EET
LAUs --
all I'm trying to do is appeal to those people, if there are any, who
are willing to come together and face companies like RME and offer
them a compromise as i outlined. nothing more or less.
the company is worried about disclosure, fine ... thats their
business. i want compatibility for such and such hardware though, and
I'm willing to sign an NDA, help develop the driver, and negotiate the
terms for distribution. whoever is interested in helping should speak
up, voice their opinion on my method, and help get things organized.
if you don't think it will work, fine; but thats all i was trying to
do here. my apologies to anyone who is bothered by it, but i don't see
how an attempt would hurt anything. it is simply a different method
of, as you say, "letting [the manufacturer] know how i feel". if you
don't have the time, resources, know-how, or even the inclination to
assist, i certainly wont think any less of you. [and I'm not being
sarcastic]
best regards,
--vord
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:03:49 -0500, Lee Revell <rlrevell_AT_joe-job.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 22:48 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > But more importantly, is it really necessary to revive this nonsense
> > again? This awful thread finally dies and now this...
>
> Agreed. I think that everyone has made their opinion clear WRT the
> status of closed source Linux drivers. At this point there's nothing
> more to do than for the people who bought or might buy RME hardware to
> let RME know how they feel. If that changes their mind, great, if not,
> take your business elsewhere.
>
> Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 07:32:41 EET