[linux-audio-dev] Tracker

[Benjamin Flaming]

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 07:35 pm, Billy Biggs wrote:
>   Hi Lea,
>
> Stonekeeper (stonekeeper at stonekeeper.freeserve.co.uk):
> > On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 19:01, Juan Linietsky wrote:
> > > It's not bad, but it's not really free (OpenSource),
> >
> > Generally, musicians don't give a toss whether something is
> > free(Opensource) or not (let the flaming begin). Seriously, I've not
> > met a single non-coder who felt this was an issue. "Opensource? I
> > don't know about that. Does it allow me to make good music?"
>
>   Just a comment (not a flame).  This is the linux-audio-dev list, so
> most of us are both application developers and musicians ;)   So Juan's
> comment is quite relevant, readers of this list would be much more
> interested if it was open source, since that would be an application we
> can contribute to and source code that we can use ourselves.

     I agree, and I would also like to share a few observations of my own.  
IMHO, the question is not "will musicians in general care whether this 
software is open source?", but rather "will the target audience of this 
release (musicians who use Linux) care whether this software is open source?"  
As a general rule, musicians who don't care about proprietary vs. open source 
won't be running Linux to begin with.

     The Windows-centric world from which the program is coming has a 
"culture" which is drastically different from the Linux world.  Proprietary 
licenses are the norm in the Windows world, and the term "freeware" still 
implies closed source.  When authors actually release their source code, 
Windows users say "Wow!  How generous!".

     In my experience of the Linux realm, by contrast, closed source is the 
exception rather than the rule.  Programs which only come in binary form are 
begrudgingly used only when no reasonable open source alternative exists.  
It's important for any potential Linux developer to understand that the 
prevailing Linux "worldview" perceives proprietary software licenses as being 
useful only to achieve selfish goals.  When someone releases proprietary 
software without charging any money for it, therefore, the Linux mentality is 
bound to react with thoughts of suspicion: "Why are they keeping the source 
code a secret, if this is really free?  Why should I trust them when they say 
they will never charge money for it?  What does he have up his sleeve?"

     For me, it's entirely an issue of trust.  I've just seen too many 
freeware products disappear, with no possibility of resurrection.  I cared 
about this even before I started actually using the source code for the 
applications I use.  I felt secure in the knowledge that if the original 
author dropped it, somebody else would pick it up and keep it going.

     "Freeware" with closed source is unique in that it creates a situation 
where the software author has no accountability to anyone.  With proprietary 
retail software, the authors are accountable because if they don't meet the 
needs of their users, nobody will buy the product (unless you have a monopoly 
- but that never happens....).  With open source software, the authors are 
accountable because if they don't meet the needs of their users, someone will 
fork the code and start a new project that does meet those needs.  When 
freeware authors don't meet the needs of their users, the users are the only 
ones who lose out.

>   Your comment here is interesting:
> > [...] Saying it's crap because of X,Y and Z will ultimately end up
> > being bad for the linux musicians community not him (he can spend all
> > his time accommodating the windows users who really appreciate his
> > efforts).
>
>   Because I agree that these politics make Linux awkward for a new
> developer who may be wary or unable to release source code.  I am not
> sure how best to approach this.

     I can understand someone new to the Linux realm being hesitant to release 
their source code, since doing so puts the burden of trust on them instead of 
on their users, but I'm puzzled by your mention of authors being "unable" to 
release their code.  If it includes proprietary components licensed from a 
third party, couldn't these be built as a separate library, and the rest of 
the code released?  Even releasing the source code for the GUI would be 
helpful, and would go a long way toward easing "diplomatic tensions" ;)

|)
|)enji