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

[Dave Robillard]

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:18 +0100, Benno Senoner wrote:
> Well Dave P, what should I say ? 
> I think the attitude of certain LAD-ers is one of the reasons why
> linux audio will
> remain an irrelevant niche for a long time to come.
> How can you you create a standard like LV2 and then make statements
> like 
> "reaper is the enemy" ?
> I think LV2 devs did not do their math correctly, since it seems that
> every non GPLed app
> is labeled as the enemy, they should change the LV2 license to GPL and
> it will
>  avoid pollution by proprietary apps. 
> So LV2 devs, what was the true reason to release LV2 under LGPL ?
> (which allows the API
> being used by proprietary apps too)
> 
> Pieter summed it up well,  LV2 devs should speak out whether they want
> to create
> a true standard or an open-source application standard only.

My name is "Dave", not "LV2", and I do not speak for "The LV2
Project" (if there is such a thing) every time I type a few words.

I will now, though:

LV2 is not GPLed to allow use by any and all software regardless of
license.  Since LV2 is an open standard and VST is not, widespread LV2
support is a win for openness, even if the application itself is not.

Reaper or any other applications are more than welcome to implement LV2.

-DR-


P.S. I clearly accept that other people do not share my opinions on free
software.  It's a shame you and Dave Phillips must waste so much breath
being closed minded and religious about it.