[LAU] Linux Audio podcast. episode003: commenting replies
malnourite at gmail.com
Fri Aug 16 19:41:20 UTC 2013
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 12:07 -0700, J. Liles wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ralf Mardorf
> > <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 11:14 -0700, J. Liles wrote:
> > >
> > > /* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be
> > useful, but
> > > WITHOUT */
> > > /* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > MERCHANTABILITY
> > > or */
> > > /* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General
> > Public
> > > License for */
> > > /* more
> > > details.
> > >
> > >
> > > It was not put there without reason.
> > The reason for this is coverage, but the target of FLOSS is to
> > provide a
> > quality level. Again, it's not black and white. If music apps
> > shouldn't
> > be perfect it's one thing, but regarding to e.g. security,
> > privacy even
> > this disclaimer won't protect an evil coder against a lawsuit.
> > I don't think you get it. It's not about protecting people from evil
> > programmers.
> Then I get it ;). It's a disclaimer.
> > It's about protecting programmers from litigious, self-entitled
> > people who assume that just because something exists, then it must
> > have been tailor made just for them and work in every way as they
> > expect. The kind of people who will shoot themselvse in the foot and
> > blame the maker of the pistol. It is to allow the programmer to write
> > something that works FOR THEMSELVES and share it freely with other
> > people WHOM IT MAY OR MAY NOT WORK FOR, without being held accountable
> > for the fact that it simply may not work for everybody. It is
> > extremely difficult, if not impossible, to write software that works
> > in environments and use cases that the programmer has never seen.
> > Consider free-software not as you would a tool that you bought from
> > the hardware store, but as a hand-crafted work of art that happens to
> > have functional applications.
> You can't present children at Halloween candy bars with razor blades in
> them and a disclaimer and guess you're off the hook.
> I don't care about the abilities that Linux audio apps might have or not
> have, but about a quality level for Linux. That something is a gift
> doesn't mean there is no demand on e.g. privacy. If somebody makes
> something public, even for free as in beer, there are still rules, laws
> to take into account. If a coder does not want to take care about rules
> and laws, the coder better don't release his software. _Again_ I'm not
> talking about the abilities of Linux audio apps, I'm thinking of data
> Dialog is needed if quality should raise, the other way, no dialog and
> use it or don't use it is legitimate too, don't get me wrong. I only
> want to point out, that the argument that something is free as in beer,
> doesn't mean that there are no quality standards.
> I programmed audio software myself ages ago and when I gave it away for
> free I didn't care about it's quality as much as I do care when I give
> away a power supplies for free.
> Something that is for free still shouldn't be dangerous crap.
Ralf, I have only one thing left to say to you:
sudo rm -rf /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Linux-audio-user