[linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects Linux from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]

[Ivica Bukvic]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-audio-dev-admin at music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-dev-
> admin at music.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Erik de Castro Lopo
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 3:29 AM
> To: linux-audio-dev at music.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] New form of GPL licence that protects
Linux
> from proprietary world [was: New powermacs?]
> 
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:16:52 -0400
> "Ivica Bukvic" <ico at fuse.net> wrote:
> 
> > > I really don't see this as a problem.
> >
> > Do you mind saying why?
> 
> Well people using libsndfile means that there are less people rolling
> their own buggy implementations. This eventually means that libsndfile
> has to handle fewer broken files due to someone else's buggy
> implementation.
> 
> But th emain reason is that most audio software requires a GUI. Any
> program
> that is Linux based will have an X11 GUI (at least to start with). On
OSX
> that GUI will always be slower that the Linux version. On mailing
lists
> for this software people will be told again and again that the
performance
> on Linux is better and sooner or later will want to try the real
thing.

I'll try to respond to many e-mails in one giant swoop :-). So here we
go:

But this might very soon become a non-issue. This has been a fact so far
because G3 and G4 processors blew chunks (contrary to what Apple has
been feeding its loyal crowds). G4 1GHz is roughly comparable to a
4-year old PIII 1GHz. However, with the newer chip, if it lives up to
its expectations, this will disappear (even if OS X is a resource hog,
eventually Apple's CPU's will be able to take it and remain standing on
its feet).

----

Many of you have pointed out that limiting GPL would hinder the freedom
it stands for. I agree. I never meant to change THE GPL, but rather to
create an offspring GPL-like license that had my suggested restrictions.

Someone mentioned "if Linux is meant to die, let it die". I completely
disagree with this philosophy, because if that happens, and let's say
theoretically other Unices go out of business, and we end up being
forced to use, for instance OS X, then we would enter the era of
indirect monopoly and all that GPL philosophy would not mean squat when
we'll still be forced to use proprietary OS/Hw.

Dual licensing perhaps is the best option at this moment. I feel very
strongly about this since it protects all of our efforts and time
investments in Linux.

I would also suggest to be careful of the "elitist" talk how Linux'
freedom offers less commonly used apps and hence the art of a Linux user
is somehow better than of the others. A race car driver is undisputably
better driver than I am (at least when it comes to racing, that is), but
in order to be better he does not necessarily need to be a better
mechanic than I am, right? That being said, I do agree that the tools we
use help shape our art and in that way do affect the appearance of our
art. I would just warn that not everyone is prepared to roll-up their
sleeves hacking stuff, just in order to do a simple cross-fade two
soundfiles. After all, how many ways are there to do this operation,
regardless whether an app is oss or not?

I guess, what I am saying is that I would love to see the LAD community
continue to grow because after all the efforts we've made, I believe
that _we_ deserve it (not some other proprietary OS), yet that appears
not to be the trend (at least not in the academic circles).

Ico