[linux-audio-dev] image problem

[D R Holsbeck]

My $.02, I get payed for implementation, not promises. ie I promise if
you install my software, it will work. I get paid for making it work.
Now granted I am not getting rich by any means, and I dont have a
workforce to support, so its kind of like comparing apples to oranges
;-) But I do see the turnkey market as a place that Linux audio systems
can excel in. Because you dont have to support Bill G to produce a
product. A lot of the Network appliances are going down this same road.

On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 21:55, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Paul,
>    Thanks you (very much actually) for the clarifications. They are
> extremely helpful.
> 
>    It's no wonder no one can make any money being in business of selling
> Linux software applications.
> 
>    I do not see how a company could afford to invest in this area, short of
> staying closed-source. Very difficult for them, so no wonder there are few
> companies calling Linux developers.
> 
>    Defining a business model that works in this environment will be an
> interesting problem to solve. On to thinking about hardware...
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-audio-dev-admin at music.columbia.edu
> [mailto:linux-audio-dev-admin at music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:06 PM
> To: linux-audio-dev at music.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] image problem
> 
> 
> >   Help me understand what libardour does exactly. It may not be the way
> the
> >code is arranged, but if I take the libardour database and break it into
> two
> >pieces, the audio stuff and the GUI, and I obey the GPL for that code, why
> 
> FYI: libardour doesn't contain any GUI code at all, or have any notion
> of any kind of UI at all.
> 
> >does something that I write that links to it have to be GPL'ed? My code is
> >my code. Paul's code is his. He's made the interface public. Does the GPL
> >license really say that if someone tries to talk to a piece of GPL'ed code
> >they have to make all of their work public also?
> 
> "talk to" is a loose and inexact term.
> 
> if you link against a piece of GPL'ed code, and you distribute your
> code, then your code must be made available under the GPL. it doesn't
> matter whether you run-time, dynamically or statically link - if your
> code makes explicit calls to code in the GPL'ed library, then you
> can't release your code under anything except the GPL.
> 
> put another way: you can use my work as you let everybody else use
> yours in the same way. don't want to play? no problem, just don't use
> my code.
> 
> if your code can operate normally without my code - that is, mine just
> acts as an extension to your already highly functional program - then
> the dynamic linking "clause" in the GPL will allow you to link against
> my code without requiring your release to use the GPL. GPL 3.0 *might*
> close this "hole".
> 
> --p
> 
> ps. libardour is GPL'ed rather than LGPL'ed for precisely the scenario
>     mark was outlining.
> 
> 
> 
-- 
drh at niptron.com

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds.
      		-- Albert Einstein

They laughed at Einstein.  They laughed at the Wright Brothers.  But
they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
		-- Carl Sagan