Consortium

consortium@lists.linuxaudio.org

461 discussions

by Daniel James

Hi Alain, > I thought maybe there is still something going on with the RBX > 1600. > > I own one and still use it - I would be delighted to see the ball > rolling a little bit further with the RBX 1600, do you have any > news? I'm afraid not, I only know what's on the website. In the absence of any further developments from the company, what I suggest is that you put together your own web page for RBX 1600 owners, find a free software project that is working on similar media jukebox systems, or maybe start your own. That way you can collect and archive source code for and information on these devices before streetfiresound.com disappears off the internet. At the very least it would be a good idea to take a backup of that site with wget -r or similar. Cheers! Daniel

19 years, 4 months

Re: Fwd: [edmemo] Re. Letter in August Edition from Daniel James

by Daniel James

Hi Neil, > Glad to have this opportunity to go into more detail with you. Yes, I do think there are some points which need to be clarified. > I'm not going to take things in any particular order here, but > would like to begin with the discussion of the Sourceforge > DVD-Audio software. I stated that this is based on reverse > engineering of commercial discs, and would like to quote from the > project overview: > */These pages contain a description of the contents of the AUDIO_TS > directory on a DVD-Audio disk. The official specifications are not > publically available and no reference has been made to them during > the writing of this documentation. All information has been gained > from the examination of the content of DVD-Audio disks produced by > commercial authoring software. > /*IE, back engineered. I agree there has been some reverse engineering done on DVD-A - it's a common enough practice in all kinds of software development, not just free software. My point was that as this particular code does not support MLP, it is no use for people who want to infringe copyright by transcoding commercial DVD-A discs. > The reason MLP is not supported, not breach of watermarking, is > purely because this will be very expensive to develop, and cannot > be done without specs. You certainly cannot do this from back > engineering commercial titles. All kinds of copy protection and encoding schemes have been compromised by reverse engineering - if they hadn't, there wouldn't have been any need for laws against it. Turing reverse engineered the Enigma code, so the practice is as old as computers themselves. > In addition, this can never, ever produce anything that is DVD-A > compliant. It cannot, as the spec books have not been consulted. > Ever. On the contrary, I could point you towards several successful examples from the world of software. The Samba file/print server does the job so well that Microsoft engineers study it to find out how SMB works. > As to the illegality of this, I do not know what country you are > writing from. It's the UK. I live on the Isle of Wight. > Here in the UK this is a criminal offence under the > 2003 review of the Copyright & Related rights regulations - an > amendment of the original Copyright, Designs & Patents act of 1988, > which was itself updated in 1996. The 2003 amendments have now made > criminal offences of reverse engineering of systems that have any > copy protection schemes applied at all. Does that even apply if you don't reverse engineer the copy protection part? > It is even an offence to > own equipment capable of circumventing copy protection schemes. I confess, I bought a region-free DVD-A player from Amazon. I think the police are a little too busy to arrest me right now though. > it is still a criminal > offence in the UK to illegally copy software. Agreed, but as I pointed out, it's not the same crime as theft. However, I wasn't advocating copyright infringement - you seem to have missed that I was talking about software which I am allowed to copy and distribute under licence. These are free software licences, such as the GNU GPL. > As for the rest of it, I won't go near open source - no support, no > guarantees, no comebacks. You are already near it. The Sound on Sound website runs on it, as do many others, including Google. It's quite likely to be in your next phone. It's in the Korg Oasys and the Hartmann Neuron. If you want support, ask IBM or any other major IT firm and they will provide it. As for guarantees or comebacks, I think you'd be very lucky to get more than the purchase price out of a proprietary software firm, if that. Has anyone you know sued Microsoft and won? Cheers! Daniel

19 years, 5 months

Re: Fwd: [edmemo] Re. Letter in August Edition from Daniel James

by Daniel James

Hello Neil, > > I would like to write this as a direct response to your letter in > > the SOS issue of August 2005, as it seems to me you have got some > > serious issues badly wrong. It does appear we disagree on some points. > > You quote the open source folks - let me point you directly at > > the open source project dealing with DVD-Audio - based around > > reverse engineered commercial discs by the authors own admission. Do you mean http://dvd-audio.sourceforge.net/ ? That site explicitly says that the code does not support Meridian Lossless Packing used in commercial discs. > > This is illegal - it is a criminal offence to do that. If you could point me towards the law that says that, I'd appreciate it. I understood that reverse engineering for the purposes of making systems compatible was legal in many countries, but not in the USA if it circumvents a copy-protection mechanism. > > And the argument that software is not property in the same sense > > as house contents is also either naive or stupid. If you can invent a physical property replicator, you could make a fortune on eBay. Maybe someone has, and they're keeping it quiet for this very reason. > > Just because it is technically possible to burn an illegal copy > > still does not make it either right or desirable to do so Please note that I was talking about free software. It's explicitly legal to burn a copy. > > it is still theft, according to the terms of laws in the UK. No, it's not. Even if it's proprietary software, it's copyright infringement - different law. Free software also depends on copyright to enforce its licensing terms, so I'm not knocking the validity or usefulness of copyright. > > It > > is absolute twaddle to suggest that, say, Steinberg would rather > > you use a stolen copy of Nuendo as opposed to a legal copy of > > Logic. Do you have any evidence for this statement, or have you done any research? You might like to read Selective Enforcement of Copyright as an Optimal Monopolistic Behavior: http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/contributions/vol3/iss1/art18/ > > And the closing arguments made about the cost of Nuendo being > > extortionate? I think not. I didn't say it was extortionate, I meant that if people pay that much for a single copy of an application they might expect to get bugfix updates included in the price. That's just good customer service. > > When you consider that out of the box you get full AES31, OMF and > > AAF import/export included for the cost, where if you use digi PT > > LE that same functionality will cost you another £575 for the > > Digi Toolkit (you don't even get timecode as standard with PT > > LE), plus yet a further £285 for DigiTranslator, making a total > > of £860 just for OMF and AAF support alone. I didn't say ProTools was better value. I wasn't making a comparison between different proprietary applications. > > As for the "known > > bugs" dig, I also suggest that you go read the comments on any > > forum about any software and it's failings. No need, I know that software has bugs - that's one of the points I was making. > > And as a regular in the Nuendo forums, I am constantly > > amazed by just how many people use stolen copies and then have > > the brass neck to try & claim bugs when the odds are very high it > > is the stolen copy that is faulty. I'm not defending people who infringe copyright, quite the opposite. I would rather people used free software than infringe copyright. > > I can give many examples of > > this with the current Nuendo. Yes, there are issues. And yes, > > they do get fixed. But with more like you in the world, it will > > take a lot longer. Oh please! I'm not even a Nuendo user. > > And Audio apps are not the only ones either. I also moderate at > > another well known companies forums, and yet again we see on a > > daily basis the users of stolen versions pissing and moaning > > about a repeatable bug that existed only in the pre release > > versions. Ask then for their build number, and like the fools > > they are they give it - and we can instantly spot the stolen beta > > copy. I'm sure that happens a lot, but it never happens to me. I use Linux and free software for nearly everything. I do have a copy of Adobe Reader, but I downloaded that from Adobe's own site. > > You state you won't "just lend your guitar to anyone" in one > > sentence, and in the next deny software companies the same right. I'm not denying anyone anything, and in fact I would like to see proprietary software companies make it difficult to copy their software - reintroducing hardware dongles, for instance. Their userbase would probably drop to a tiny fraction of what it is now. > > Our industry needs thieves like it needs an extra hole in the > > head. We agree on that. There's more than one kind of rip-off though. > > I wonder how much stolen software is installed to your > > system?? None at all. I don't even have a copy of Windows, so I'm not sure how I could run it even if I had it. Would you like a package list from this machine? Cheers! Daniel

19 years, 5 months

Csound project joins consortium

by ico＠fuse.net

Greetings all, It is my great pleasure to announce our newest member to the consortium, the Csound project, represented by John ffitch. It is truly flattering to see one of the most widespread Music-N DSP projects endorse our consortium. Daniel, could you please update the website accordingly? Many thanks! I am currently out of the country for a vacation and should be back around mid-August. Perhaps we should have an IRC meeting sometime in the late August in order to review some of the ideas discussed this past spring at the LAC, and hopefully put some of them into motion. Until then, have a great summer all! Best wishes, Ivica Ico Bukvic, composer & multimedia sculptor http://meowing.ccm.uc.edu/~ico/

19 years, 5 months

Press Release: OPEN SOURCE CREATIVITY IN BRISTOL, UK - 20TH AUGUST

by Daniel James

Hello, Please post the following release on your site, forward it to interested parties and mailing lists - particularly in the Bristol area - or link to http://www.fave.org.uk/ Thanks! Daniel James on behalf of FAVE **** (27/7/2005, Bristol, England) FAVE is a new event for people who are interested in free and open source creative software on Linux and other computer platforms. It's taking place on Saturday August 20th 2005 at the Trinity Community & Arts Centre in Bristol, UK. Everyone is welcome, even if they have never used this kind of software before. Doors open at 10am and the event gets underway at 11am. Music will continue into the evening, and the whole event costs just £5 to get in. This is no dry, dull conference! It will be an accessible festival of fun with performances, presentations and workshops. Topics will include music production, recording and do-it-yourself film making. There will be sessions covering community media, streaming content servers, tangible interfaces, digital TV regulation and Creative Commons licensing. Networking, internet access and media streaming will be provided by Bristol Wireless. Speakers at FAVE 2005 include: James Wallbank - Art for all at Access Space Tom Chance - Remix Reading and the Creative Commons John Ffitch - An introduction to Csound Michael Sparks (BBC Research & Development) - Streaming with Kamaelia Richard Bown (Fervent Software) - The Rosegarden sequencer and Studio To Go! Chris O'Shea - Sonicforms - a tangible interfaces project Plugincinema.com - The internet, technology & Open Source film-making RachelAPP - Recording music with Ardour, Hydrogen and Jamin Cory Doctorow (Electronic Frontier Foundation) - Europe's coming Broadcast Flag Performers using Linux and other free software will include: Matt Gray Dave Griffiths (Pattern Cascade) RachelAPP Martin Howse and Jonathan Kemp (ap) Jonny Stutters (Jeremah) Andy Preston (Edge Effect) For full details of the line-up, see the FAVE website at: http://www.fave.org.uk/ HELPING OUT If you would like to take part in this event, the first of its kind in the UK, please see the website for details of the FAVE mailing list and IRC channel. This is a community event, and it relies on volunteers to make it a success. GETTING TO FAVE The Trinity Centre is in the centre of Bristol, not far from the mainline railway station at Temple Meads or Lawrence Hill station. It is a large former church near the corner of the A420 Clarence Road and Trinity Road. NOTES TO EDITORS For follow-up information, please contact Daniel James (daniel at linuxaudio.org) phone: +44 (0)1983 755976 or Tim Hall (tech at glastonburymusic.org.uk). Press interviews and images for publication are also available - just ask. **ends**

19 years, 5 months

[Fervent Software] Fervent Software Announce Studio to Go! v1.50

by Richard Bown

Fervent Software Announce Studio to Go! v1.50 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 20th July 2005, United Kingdom Fervent Software, the world's leading open source music technology company, are thrilled to announce the release for pre-order of version 1.50 of their famous Studio to Go! integrated music software. Studio to Go! v1.50 gives you all of the latest Linux[tm] music technology on a single bootable CD that provides the ability to compose, record and mix on any PC without having to install it. It runs entirely from the CD, configures itself automatically and allows you to save compositions on your favourite storage device. Studio to Go! v1.50 includes many improvements on the original version including a great new Rosegarden sequencer now with multi-track audio recording and hardware sync, the latest Ardour digital audio workstation and an amazing new look for the Hydrogen drum machine. All of these applications and the many more included in Studio to Go! work together to allow you to compose, record and mix with ease. Now for the first time, Fervent Software are also making available the "Rosegarden Companion" (183 pages, D. Michael McIntyre 2005) - the essential guide to getting the best out of the world's favourite open source sequencer. Fervent are now offering the latest and greatest version of Studio to Go!, the Rosegarden Companion and a 128MB USB clipdrive all for the amazing price of £79.99GBP + p&p. This bundle includes everything you need to get up and running with Linux Audio on your PC. Existing customers can upgrade to the latest version of Studio to Go! by logging on to the Fervent website and hitting Upgrade! You can find out more and pre-order Studio to Go! v1.50 direct from the Fervent Software website: http://www.ferventsoftware.com For more information please contact: Email: info(a)ferventsoftware.com _______________________________________________ Fervent mailing list Fervent(a)ukfsn.org http://lists.ukfsn.org/mailman/listinfo/fervent

19 years, 5 months

Re: Linux trademark fees for non-profit organisations

by Jon maddog Hall

Daniel, We are still tuning the web site and its verbiage. Your points are well taken. daniel(a)linuxaudio.org said: > However, I think the way that this is being handled, with the threat of > legal action against legitmate non-profit Linux groups who don't pay up, is > wrong. .... > "If you know of entities or persons using the Linux mark without a license > and without the required legend, please notify us with the details. We will > then contact that entity or person and attempt to negotiate a license > agreement with them, or will take such other further legal action as might > be necessary." As in most Legal things, every word is important. You missed the word "negotiate". What is most important to us is that the Mark be sublicensed properly. If people are not willing to help us do this, both for LMI's interest and for their own, then maybe they should not be using the Mark. On the other hand, we DO listen. > That would be a good idea. Have you asked Bruce Perens? It was his concern > about the Debian-compatibility of the LMI sublicence that brought this > matter to our attention. We are currently working with Bruce to meet his concerns. We do not anticipate any changes to the license itself. We believe that Bruce misinterpreted the license. We would have preferred Bruce coming to us with questions and issues before going to the Debian community. If he had, we probably would have been able to get much further than we are right now, but that is water over the dam. We plan on creating a FAQ that explains some of the harder points of law in more understandable terms. The tricky part of that is not to compromise what is needed by the legalese to protect the Mark by having an interpretation in English that does not accurately reflect the legalese. > However, the actual licence text, by setting an annual fee for non-profits, > seems to contradict it's own fair use provisions. The term "fair use" is a very legal term, and has very specific needs. I can not just say that your use of the term "Linux" is "fair use" just because it fits the definition of what you and I might consider "fair". >As far as linuxaudio.org is concerned, we could help that effort by >putting 'LINUXÂ® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds' This would be a wonderful thing, and would help to protect the Mark in any case. All I can do is say that LMI is doing its best to protect the Mark, and none of the members of LMI or OSDL wants to make the use of the Mark any harder than we absolutely must. Of all the things I do, this is the least enjoyable, but I am well aware of the dynamics of the FOSS community, and LMI is working to both protect the Mark and make it available, something extremely tricky under Trademark law. Having said all this, I beg to be quiet about this at this point so I can prepare for a board meeting where I will discuss your concerns and feedback with the attornies and other board members. md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: maddog(a)li.org 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries.

19 years, 6 months

Re: Linux trademark fees for non-profit organisations

by Jon maddog Hall

Daniel, daniel(a)linuxaudio.org said: > If this is the case, could you ask LMI and/or OSDL to reconsider this move? > It could be seen as a tax by OSDL's corporate founders on Linux-related > groups around the world. LMI is constantly looking at this, and we will consider any reasonable path that can be done. But please understand that I (Jon "maddog" Hall), have spent close to 100,000 USD of my personal funds, as well as another 200,000 USD of Linux International's money, defending the Linux Trademark around the world so that user groups like yours can use it. LI is broke, and so am I. OSDL and its corporate sponsors are not "taxing" the use of the word Linux. OSDL has loaned LMI (a non-profit corporation, with NO paid board members or staff other than a paralegal, who has to eat) money to try and make the protection of the word "Linux" self-funding. There is one OSDL representative on the board, which is reasonable since they want to make sure their money is being spent wisely and that we are proceeding to do 'the right thing', whatever that is. The rest of the board members are either legal or community. Linus gets copied on every decision, and can revoke LMI's authority to do this if he wishes. We are looking to expand the board, taking more people from the community, not from OSDL, and trying to get some non-USA input into this also. Again, we are constantly looking at trying to make this as low cost as possible, but when it costs 100,000 USD to file a trademark in the EU, the money has to come from someplace. > Perhaps there should be a turnover cut-off, eg organisations with less than > US $100,000 annual turnover don't have to pay. I think there has to be some payment, as it costs money to administer the MARK, which is part of what the law says you have to do to protect it. If there was no charge whatsoever, then tens of thousands of people might try to register names "just in case"...sort of like URL cybersquatting. Part of protecting the name is keeping the namespace open so that legitimate groups (like yours) can use it. As I said, we are constantly reviewing this policy, and I will take your concern to the board (which, by the way, has only one OSDL employee on it). Warmest regards, md -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: maddog(a)li.org 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association, USENIX Association (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries.

19 years, 6 months

Linux trademark fees for non-profit organisations

by Daniel James

Hi Jon, Is it true that the Linux Mark Institute wants to charge non-profits US $200 per year to use the word Linux in their names? That's the impression I get from the form here: http://www.linuxmark.org/forms/linux_licence_doc.html#Check1 If this is the case, could you ask LMI and/or OSDL to reconsider this move? It could be seen as a tax by OSDL's corporate founders on Linux-related groups around the world. Perhaps there should be a turnover cut-off, eg organisations with less than US $100,000 annual turnover don't have to pay. Cheers! Daniel (on behalf of linuxaudio.org)

19 years, 6 months

Re: [Consortium] Linux trademark

by Daniel James

Hi Leslie, > > I think we should resist this move on principle. > > I think so, too - they claim to just protect the trademark, but > they could surely do so without charging fees from non-profit > organizations. The problem is that they have the legal basis to do > whatever they want, don't they? They claim to have the authority of Linus, but I'm not sure if he was consulted on this tax-raising initiative. The Linux Mark Institute doesn't explicitly say it is run by OSDL, but it is registered in Beaverton, Oregon (same town) and its site is hosted on an OSDL server. OSDL is Linus's employer of course. The idea that free software developers and users have to pay an organisation founded by IBM, HP, Intel etc etc to use the Linux name may prove difficult to defend. It may also be difficult to enforce a trademark with legal penalties in some countries if it hasn't been enforced previously. Cheers! Daniel

19 years, 6 months

← Newer
1
...
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
...
47
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Consortium