> I actually assumed this was a troll or joke.
I'm very serious about this.
> Daniel announces a project with the backing of a dozen or so linux audio
> developers, but without discussing it on l-a-d and Marek conpains and
> wants the domain for his own purposed
For my own??
> which have the backing of zero
> developers and
> havent been discussed on l-a-d.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That 120+ linuxaudio.org thread wasn't enough?
> which have the backing of zero
> developers and
You're right, why bother...
Marek
First i'd like to say, that i'm not going to subscribe to the consortium
mailing-list, because as i see it, by subscribing to this ml i would
silently agree to the idea of a consortium.
> > So, with these sorts of issues in mind, would it be possible to
> > characterize the group by means of a less intimidating term?
> > "Advocacy group" works for me (it is, after all, a purely voluntary
> > association that carries no legal obligation with it), although
> > I'd
> > be glad to talk about alternatives.
The only alternative i see is a non-profit organization consisting of
natural persons, a legal entity.
> It is the case that we've already announced linuxaudio.org as a
> consortium.
This was another reason why i asked to postpone it.
Just to demonstrate how easy it is to get confused:
"[linux-audio-announce] LINUXAUDIO.ORG CONSORTIUM LAUNCHED TO CREATE PROFESSIONAL AUDIO TOOLS Daniel James (Thu Jan 15 2004 - 16:04:08 EET)"
Was a consortium really launched to *create*?
Who will be given credit if the linux audio apps become widely used? The consortium? It's members? Which members?
> However, once the management board is in place -
> hopefully next week - they could discuss this issue. We certainly
> don't want to put anyone off from joining.
The problem is that projects aren't organisations from a legal point of view.
Combining them with companies doesn't make much sense.
A foundation would offer additional protection as it would
consist of developers participating in linux audio projects
which are subject to such additional protection.
Problems such as those Fred pointed out could be easily avoided.
The problem with the domain is - the term 'linuxaudio' has become a "trademark", sort of.
It represents the linux audio developers, the linux audio users, linux audio applications/projects.
I hoped it to be a home for LAD, LAU and LAA, and to offer more - community news, documentiation and tutorials, etc.
Unfortunately this isn't happening. It puts a consortium of companies in the spotlight while keeping the community aside.
I was surprised to see how many of lad subscribers and you guys underestimate the issue that LAD is not "only a" mailing list anymore.
Just an example - 2 job offerings were posted on LAD during this week. Having a job bulletin board on linuxaudio.org would come very handy
for those searching for *linux audio* related jobs. Per analogiam, *linux audio* users, developers etc would find *linux audio* related information.
Marek
> What are the main prejudices towards Libre audio software?
just a question: now that you guys are mainly using the term libre audio software, would it be possible to register libreaudio.org instead and leave the linuxaudio.org domain for the purposes i have mentioned before?
Marek
>> > It represents the linux audio developers, the linux audio users,>> > linux audio applications/projects.
>>>> > I hoped it to be a home for LAD, LAU and LAA, and to offer more -
>> > community news, documentiation and tutorials, etc.
>>>> As I already told you, I'm more than willing to propose, as soon as>> the voting rules are established, that specific subdomains of>> linuxaudio.org be devoted to such services.>>>> I personally won't have the time to work on the actual services. I'm>> confident that willing people will do that. Are you volunteering?
>> once linuxaudio.org has had time to work out their aims and policies
> in more detail, i would like to propose that linuxaudio.org, the lad page
> and possibly others (such as dave's and patrick's site) work out a> corporate design of sorts (or maybe just a logo) and form a web ring.
Joern, the problem is - a webring won't solve the fragmentation of linux audio on the web.
See www.jabber.org and www.jabberstudio.org to get an idea of what i was talking about.
Using a domain name with a crucial keyword for a consortium while leaving crucial information placed all over the net isn't going to help us.
Grep in your archives for my email from july, august or september.
> for the time being, i think it's best not to bring the subject to> LAD again, but in the long run, once linuxaudio.org has more clearly> defined itself, i'd like to discuss the web ring idea on the list> and see what can be done.
I'm not sure what are the missing points on the TODO list for
"defining" the consortium. Daniel?
Lots more than you might think, Andrea. There are lots of legal issues involved. I don't want to go into more details at the moment.
But a non-profit organisation consisting of natural members - members of a community is a model that has been adopted in many oss communities.
See fsf, gnome, xiph, X.org.
to quote http://www.newsforge.com/software/04/01/23/0020201.shtml?tid=130&tid=132&ti…
"X.org no longer "the X consortium" -- is now a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization."
Marek
> > Just to say that obviously the consortium is not entirely made
> > up of corporate "wolves" who don't know or don't care
> > about freedom (honestly I don't see how one could reach this
> > conclusion looking at the current members' list, but anyway).
>
> Compare 4Front vs. ALSA
OK, let's do that. 4Front is a company which produces both proprietary
(OSS) and libre software (xmms). It has a couple of staff and a
modest turnover. ALSA developers are employed by Novell, which now
also produces both kinds of software. Apart from being the granddaddy
of proprietary networks, Novell is a multi-million dollar
multi-national company which probably has thousands of staff.
The idea that OSS is 'corporate' but ALSA is not just makes me laugh.
Even when it was sponsored by SUSE, the ALSA project had far bigger
corporate backing than 4Front. SUSE was invested in substantially by
IBM and other companies over many years.
Cheers
Daniel
Hi Fred,
> WRT our earlier discussion about SRL joining the group, this is
> something I'd like to do. I now need to run this past the
> management folks at our Corporate offices -- which brings me to the
> point of this message: the word "consortium". In light of the
> discussions over the past week or so, my understanding is that the
> organization is a group to advocate informally the use of
> Linux-based audio solutions, with no binding legal agreements
> between members. That being the case, I'm not sure that
> "consortium" is an accurate description. Perhaps "Advocacy Group"
> would be a better term.
My original aim was to eventually move beyond advocacy alone to
include co-development projects and the like. Of course, that's up to
the members.
> The reason I bring this up is that, in the US at least, the word
> "consortium" comes weighted with some rather heavy legal baggage,
> implying formal, close relations between members by means of
> binding legal agreements if not actual collective control and
> ownership.
I wasn't aware of that - I hadn't heard of that usage in the UK. What
you're describing would be called a 'partnership' here.
I've just found this feature on Google:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:Consortium
I like the definition from biology:
'Two or more members of a natural assemblage in which each organism
benefits from the other. The group may collectively carryout some
process that no single member can accomplish on its own.'
> That being the case, any proposal on my part that Salem
> join this "consortium" will put all the legal types at Corporate
> into hyperdrive. At best, it would make obtaining such approval an
> extremely long, arduous process. More likely, such consent would
> never be obtained at all.
Lawyers, eh?
> So, with these sorts of issues in mind, would it be possible to
> characterize the group by means of a less intimidating term?
> "Advocacy group" works for me (it is, after all, a purely voluntary
> association that carries no legal obligation with it), although I'd
> be glad to talk about alternatives.
It is the case that we've already announced linuxaudio.org as a
consortium. However, once the management board is in place -
hopefully next week - they could discuss this issue. We certainly
don't want to put anyone off from joining.
I suggest that you approach your people in the meantime and test their
reactions to the idea, explaining that your company will not be
expected to sign any contract.
Personally, I think goodwill, trust and peer pressure are far more
powerful than contracts. I suppose that when you sign a contract,
you've already acknowledged that trust has failed to be established!
Cheers
Daniel
> If you want to sell the idea of linux-audio applications to the
> world, marketing is marketing, then .. put a director photos with
> tie (neck, cravat ....) like a serious company.
Hmmm... there's an idea. I do own a tie or two, but I wasn't planning
to wear them for linuxaudio.org events. I'm not sure how well it
would go down with an audience of musicians and sound engineers.
Cheers
Daniel
Hello Stephanie,
> This is a standard health & safety regulation employed in all
> venues. I believe it's to do with the electrical fittings being
> temporary and that the angle and weight of several plugs going into
> an adapter causes stress on the socket contacts which increases the
> risk of fire.
Ah - you mean those adaptor cube things which have three or four
sockets on them, one each side? I never use those anyway, and I'd
quite understand if they were banned.
> You don't however have to pay for one socket per piece of equipment
> as 4 way gangs are permitted
Thanks for clearing that up - the lighting and power order form
doesn't make a distinction between different types of adaptor. We'll
bring a watt meter to make sure we're not overloading the supply.
Cheers
Daniel
