[LAD] LV2 " isn't well thought out ?" LV2 in the Reaper sequencer

[Pieter Palmers]

t_w_ at freenet.de wrote:
> Dave Phillips wrote:
> 
>> So responding with sarcasm, "We'll do it my way or not at all" 
>> conditions, and a confrontive attitude qualifies as "the spirit of 
>> collaboration" ? Geez, you guys are really winning me over.
> 
> It's the good right of Dave and Lars to not care or even outright
> reject closed software. They could have said it more diplomatic 
> terms ... but now you make a drama of it.
> 
> It could even be that both never claimed to be open minded ;)
> 
> Dave puts an incredibly amount of effort into several open projects.
> Why would he go out of his way to help adding capabilities to
> closed software that kinda competes with what he works on?
> Producers of closed software gotta love competition and doing it 
> all by themselves.

We do have to keep in mind that we are talking about a LV2 'standard' 
here. A standard is generally conceived to make different (competing) 
products compatible with each other. Drafting a standard always requires 
competitors to work together to find a common middle ground.

The question we should ask ourselves is whether LV2 should be a real 
standard, or some sort of 'open-source only' standard.

If it is supposed to be a real standard, the fact that Reaper is not 
open source doesn't matter.

Greets,

Pieter