[LAU] [LAD] zitaretuner
murks at tuxfamily.org
Sat Oct 11 01:22:41 UTC 2014
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 20:14:14 +0000
Fons Adriaensen <fons at linuxaudio.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
> Today I got an email of a user asking me to help him make a plugin
> called 'zitaretuner' work. I never wrote such a plugin, and I didn't
> even know it existed. So I can't help this user.
> Of course this made me curious, and I managed to get a copy of
> the source code of this lv2 plugin. And I wasn't very amused.
> As expected it's based on zita-at1, and again a complete disaster.
> The DSP code of zita-at1 is written as a neat self-contained C++
> class with a very clean interface, and this is done explicitly to
> make it re-usable.
> But instead of re-using it, the author of the plugin decided to
> rewrite it in C, and combine it in the same source file with parts
> of libzitaresampler (instead of using that as a library as it is
> meant to), and with whatever is required to turn it into an lv2.
> The whole thing is just a single source file.
> The same author (who is know only as 'jg') didn't bother to add
> a decent GUI, relying on the plugin host to create one. That means
> for example that the note selection buttons (which also double as
> 'current note' indicators in zita-at1), are replaced by faders.
> Only $GOD knows what they are supposed to control.
> And as a final topping on the cake, that whole crappy thing is
> presented as if I were the author of it all. No mention at all
> that things have been modified, and by whom or why. This alone
> is a clear violation of the license under which zita-at1 was
> released. And whoever did it doesn't even have the courage to
> identify him/herself.
> I've complained about this sort of thing before, and this time
> I'm really pissed. So let one thing be clear: I will never again
> release any code under a license that allows this sort of thing
> to happen.
too bad that things like that happen.
If he really did violate the license then this has to be sorted out. He
should probably also use some other name to rule out confusions such as
the one you just experienced.
However, the bad quality code is a different issue. You really can't
force people to write good code or do sensible things with code you
release under a license like the GPL, everyone can fuck it up as bad as
he wants to and release it. Whether it's useful and will be used is a
different matter. Of course we all would like high quality code and
while your code usually lives up to a pretty high standard a lot of
other code does not and you can't expect it to.
I really don't know how releasing the code under a different license
could possibly get rid of this issue. If people violate the GPL they
will violate any other license as well and there's little you can do
about it. The only way that might work is to not release any code at
all, and I hope that you won't go down that road.
More information about the Linux-audio-user