[LAU] Look ma, I'm in the paper :)

[Louigi Verona]

Massimo!

"Hey, the GPL agreement doesn't ask me to pay anything. ;-)"

It seems that the only limitation you really care about is money.

1. This has little to do with free and proprietary software. Proprietary
software
can be free (and huge amounts of it is). Open Source could be paid
(it rarely is).

2. Money is not the only limitation possible in life. GPL is a very strict,
non-permissive license. The only license that is truly fully permissive
is CC0. If you are using a CC Attribution Share Alike, you are forcing
me to share my product as well.

This is a limitation and I frequently decide not to use someone's work
because they say it should not be used in a commercial product. If I
want to sell my music at Bandcamp, I cannot use this work.

I think it is your right to license your products however you want, but
you cannot claim that there are no limitations simply because you are
not asking for money.





On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:50 PM, jonetsu <jonetsu at teksavvy.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Len Ovens <len at ovenwerks.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016, jonetsu wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 07:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
> > > Len Ovens <len at ovenwerks.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Every single notion brought in your text can be matched by u-he,
> > >>> Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial
> > >>> products that runs on Linux.
> > >
> > >> Hmm, easy to say. Many of the new features in Ardour are there
> > >> because someone who was outside of the development team looked at
> > >> the code and added a feature they wanted... and became an Ardour
> > >> developer :)
> > >
> > > It is not easy to say.  It is backed up. Go through the threads :
> > >
> > > u-he
> > >
> > > http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31
> > ... etc. etc.
> >
> > > And then there are the private support emails, about which I have no
> > > complaints.
> >
> > Not what I said at all. I should have known from past replys not to
> > bother saying anything. jonetsu to spam box...
>
> The reply is exactly to what you have said.  You have said that people
> outside of the development team looked at the code and added a feature.
>
> With all considerations of commercial software taken into account, the
> examples given in the reply do listen to what people, users, say.
> perhaps even more so than in Open Source sine their income depends
> directly on it.  The food on the table depends on it.
>
> Furthermore, it is not streamlined as I will a dd a feature to the
> software project because I think it is good.  It does not work exactly
> like that, which is a limited vision.  "Chances are still slim in Open
> Source to have someone saying after reading a post that's a great idea
> I will implement it.  Then there will be discussions with leads and
> they might refuse.  They might say that's not good code.  They might
> say we have other plans,  It's not as easy as saying the principle
> entails."
>
> I stand by the reply.
>
> I do not block on spam box, I always keep it Open.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>



-- 
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20161101/d0e783db/attachment.html>