[LAD] aBLETON lINK

[Paul Davis]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey <
pshirkey at boosthardware.com> wrote:

>
> > On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts
> >>> of
> >>> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo).
> >> What?
> >>
> >> I repeat: that's not an innovation.
> >
> > Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation?
> >
> > Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link is
> > momentum behind it, along with the apple-style dictated protocol: take
> > it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design
> > discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and more
> > like a floss-like benevolent dictator style (think jack, or LV2).
> >
> > The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually does
> > closed-source proprietary software publishes an API and reference
> > implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too.
> >
> > That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that!
> >
> > Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it,
> > pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the
> > hard part.
> >
>
> Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source
> projects leading the field in other markets.
>

There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user
visible software applications.

And in terms of non-end-user visible software applications, Linux has
permeated just as deeply into pro audio as anywhere else (perhaps even more
so).



>
> There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes
> contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without
> having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights.
>

No matter what Ableton or anyone may or may not write, you cannot release
something under GPLv2 and retain "explicit ownership/control", and branding
rights are of limited value in this domain.



>
> Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the Linux
> Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we
> still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players?
>

Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and
promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority
of developers and users.

Do you have any idea how many companies I've interacted who are 100% aware
of JACK (and maybe even a little in awe of some of what it can do) and may
even have developed versions of their software that use it, but that cannot
figure out how they could ever deploy them?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/attachments/20160923/42cc0878/attachment.html>