[LAD] Open Source to be or not to be?

[hermann meyer]

Am 25.06.2014 23:10, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:02:00PM +0200, hermann meyer wrote:
>
>> and I must say, it hurts me.
> I see no reason why it should hurt you, or anyone. You may agree with
> my opinions or not, but that's an entirely different matter.
>
Because I try to do the Open Source Community a pleasure and wont be the 
devils advocate.
You say that a part of my work leads you to avoid to release OpenSource 
(GPL'd), that is a thing which I ever tried to avoid. It hurts me to 
hear that I may be fallen therewith.


>> Truly, you have made a great contribution to the Open Source World
>> with your (excellent) work, but, your habit to restrict the use of
>> your source isn't nice anymore.
> habit ? As far as I know there is currently one (1) application
> released under more restrictive conditions. And yes, I have hinted
> that I am holding back some other things and distributing then only
> to selected users. Since I'm under no obligation to release anything
> at all I don't see how that could be held against me.
>
>> We use here, in this special case,
>> exactly the faust source, which you have work out together with
>> Julius Smith,
> Not at all. Julius has taken the zita-rev1 source and recoded part
> of it into Faust. I was not involved at all.

I remember the discussion about the Hadarmard matrix function in 2010 at 
faust devel list. This one was as well about the zita-rev1 
implementation in faust.
As well you seems to be pleased with the faust zita-rev1 implementation 
at this time and helped Julius with some hints.

>> and which is distributed under the GPL within the faust distribution.
> Indeed. So you are entitled to use it - no problem with that.
>

Al the discussion here imply exactly the opposite, . .

>
>
> And then you turn it into a toy for musicians and make it look like a
> 1950s piece of vintage gear. And call that zita-rev while IT IS NOT
> zita-rev, by far.
>

I, didn't call anything here, as I have stated out before. It is, the 
faust implementation, which is implement in faust as zita-rev1. Because 
we use it as it is, we use the name of the implementation as it is. But, 
the "and make it look like a 1950s piece of vintage gear", I take as a 
compliment, because that is indeed what we will reach. :-)

I understand, you didn't like it, but, that is a matter of taste. I 
didn't like how zita-rev1 looks in your original version, that the way 
it is, different people, different taste.
>> Isn't that what Open Source is about?
> If open source is about sharing your work and knowledge I'm all for it.
> If it just means a license for cherry-picking without respect for the
> original author's intentions and in fact subverting those, then I have
> my doubts.
>
As pointed out earlier, I always try to don't act in this way, that's 
why I have contacted you several times before we start to use 
zita-convolver and zita-resampler in our project, I've reported the 
problems we've had to you, and ask for advice and permission to 
implement it at is best.

There is no way for me to see that you are un-pleased with the faust 
implementation of zita-rev1, nor that you wouldn’t see any 
implementation of it in other projects.
What the hell do you expect when you tell here we do
"cherry-picking without respect for the original author's intentions and 
in fact subverting those"

As, well, cherry-picking, we didn't only pick those, we give them also 
back in form of contributions to the source code of faust, so, please,

> Creativity is not just the ability to copy. 

Thanks for this tip.

by
hermann