Hey Robert!
I very much agree with you that sustainability is a strong point of free to
modify and distribute software. I don't think that it tells the whole
story, but yes, it is a very strong point.
The whole story is that most musicians, for instance, are not using open
source software. Yet somehow they are performing and writing music and
apparent lack of sustainability over the years is being managed just fine.
As for custom software, I actually would disagree that this is necessarily
a feature of open source. It is a feature of hobbyist software. It's just
that in today's word developer play field is usually set in an open source
environment. But definitely not all of it. For instance, amateur gaming
scene is largely proprietary.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Robert Edge <thumbknucklerocks@email-addr-hidden>
wrote:
> Can you still perform your 12 channel live electronic music composition
> (with custom synthesis and signal processing routines) when it needs to be
> ported to whatever the current hardware and OS platform is 20 years from
> now?
>
> If you use software that is actually written with standards compliance,
> portability, and a commitment to open source principals the answer is yes.
> I'm talking about stuff like GCC, Pure Data, Csound, snd, and the LADSPA
> plugin standard.
>
> If you use proprietary software the answer is most likely no. Especially
> if the company that wrote the software no longer exists, and even if it did
> the OS it was compiled for hasn't been supported for a decade, and even if
> it was you don't remember where you left the dongle.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:54 AM, jonetsu <jonetsu@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:08:36 +0100
>> Massimo Barbieri <massimo@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>>
>> > Can you use proprietary software without any limits? Can you study the
>> > source code of a proprietary software? Can you modify the proprietary
>> > software? Can you redistribute proprietary software?
>>
>> 1) Yes.
>>
>> 2) No. I want to make music, not dispute algorithms. When I put my
>> nose in source code is to get paid, to bring bread and butter to the
>> table. When I'm, not paid, I like to make music. And biking, and
>> various fun things.
>>
>> 3) No. See 2).
>>
>> 4) No. I believe people has a right to earn a living.
>>
>> >> You could very well sell your music made with Open Source software.
>> >> The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
>> >> software itself.
>>
>> > I can assure that I can apply to my music any license I want :-)
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> > I chose a Creative Commons license Attribution, Share alike
>> > (CC-BY-SA) and I used this license to publish final mix, single
>> > recordings tracks and Ardour project that are a sort of "source code"
>> > of our music. This is my way to say thanks to developers who wrote
>> > Ardour, Hydrogen, CALF and many others great software ad free
>> > software.
>>
>> And there can be a time also when one will want to make money. Why
>> not ?
>>
>> Ciao.
>>
>> --
>> NP: "Multiverso" - Deus ex machina (Official video, Bologna, October
>> 2016) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRrDJntwsa8
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-audio-user mailing list
>> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
>> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
>
-- Louigi Verona http://www.louigiverona.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Nov 1 20:15:02 2016
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 01 2016 - 20:15:02 EET