[LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long)

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Thu Jun 7 18:08:09 EDT 2007

On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 22:58 +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:
> >I really can't figure out your motives here.
> I can neither figure out yours. Two days ago you put down a request to put 
> together an open specification stating that it already existed, and refered 
> them to a consortium standard that depends on a MicroSoft license. Why would 
> you want to stifle open development?

How many times do I have to explain that there is no need to use MS
licenses or software anymore, that this requirement vanished several
years ago, that a simple download of the SDK would reveal this, that you
are reading outdated docs that the AAF Association should have removed
from their online presence ? I have stated at least twice that there is
a *GNU* replacement for the component that was once represented only by
MS's structured storage. What more do I need to do?

> >My most optimistic guess is that you read some outdated text on a website 
> >and got all pissed at the whole idea.
> I read the license agreements on the AAF site, this is not 'a' website, it 
> is that of the body authorising the specification you suggest the open 
> source community adopt. If these are outdated text then perhaps the very 
> authority should be pressurised, however I have a feeling their information 
> might just be up to date. That license states that distribution requires 
> that their license be signed, and another license from MicroSoft stating:

> "Microsoft's Structure Storage file format as REQUIRED in the AAF 
> specfication."

the file format is NOT subject to a license and there is a GNU
replacement for the implementation! how much clearer can i be?

> Why can't you perhaps accept that you cannot foist this as a open source 
> standard. 

sf.net, which only accepts projects with OSI-certified licenses, doesn't
appear to agree with your assessment of the "open source-ness" of the

> Until there is something on that site to suggest that the licensing be a 
> little more open then perhaps the community might not be expected to accept 
> this. This may be the case with the pending XML format although the is no 
> such indication.

i think you imagine that the AAF Association is somehow way more than
the band of hackers assembled here. its not. its a tiny group of people
trying to get something accomplished. their online presence has been out
of date since pretty much the day they went online. they have no
webmaster, and everyone associated with it, AFAIK, has a day job that
takes up the vast majority of their time. their progress has also been
stunted by the fact that Avid/Digidesign have not adopted AAF in
anything like the fashion that they once indicated that they would
(their implementation is actually somewhat broken), which has reduced
the pressure on other application developers to adopt AAF as well.

like you, i noted and did not like an apparent need for an MS license,
or even just using an MS library. unlike you, i *wrote* the AAFA to ask
what the situation was. you can see the dialog in the forums at sf.net
(which, btw, see hardly any traffic). there is no such dependency. end
of story.

can we please get on with talking about how to get the AAFA to speed up
release of AAF-XML, etc etc?


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list