[linux-audio-dev] The beginnings of an ladcca manual

Bob Ham node at users.sourceforge.net
Wed Dec 11 13:39:00 UTC 2002


On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:25:15PM +0000, Nathaniel Virgo wrote:

> programs.  This means that if a commercial program comes along it won't be 
> able to use the library, and anyone who wanted to use that program would have 
> to manually keep loads of files in sync like we do now.  

Like I said before, I'm very well aware of what it means for the library to
be under the GPL.  I'm aware that proprietary (who says that free software
isn't "commercial"?  Have a look at Red Hat's stock quotes) programs are not
allowed to link to libladcca.  Like I said, this is *why* I chose to release
under the GPL.  The issue is: what is best for free audio software (on
linux or any other system.)  Will it aid free audio software by having a
proprietary applications like, eg cubase or cakewalk or reason, ported
to a free operating system like gnu/linux, and remain proprietary?  I think
not.  If cubase was ported to gnu/linux, its users would still be told
"you cannot change this program."  What good will this do free audio
software?  It may bring more users in to using other free software such as
jack, portaudio, ardour, sweep, alsa, etc, but if such a thing ever happened,
I very much fear that it would make the linux-audio-dev world a place where
proprietary licenses were dominant.  Do I want cubase to be ported to gnu/linux?
No, I do not.  Not if it's under a proprietary license.  Of course, I
realise that I am (unfortunately for software freedom) in a minority here. 
I also realise that the license that libladcca is released under will have
little or no effect on the issue, but I'm not quite prepared to put a stamp
of approval on proprietary audio software, either, and that's what I would
feel like I was doing if I released ladcca under the LGPL.  Regardless, this
is a non-issue for the moment, as, thankfully, freely licensed audio software
abounds atm. If/when the situation changes, it may be prudent to readdress the
issue, but for the moment, I think the GPL will stay.

Having just reread the above, and thinking back to the reasons why glibc was
released under the LGPL, I have, in fact, concluded that I am wrong.  I'll
leave it up there anyway as it's an interesting argument.  The next release
of ladcca will have libladcca under the LGPL license.  I do still not want
cubase if it's under proprietary license, and I do still very much fear a
linux-audio-dev world dominated by proprietary licenses, but libladcca under
the GPL will probably make things worse for free audio software, I see this
now.  Oh the woes of a proprietary software world :)

Anyway, back to hacking :)

Bob



More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list