> 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
Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> writes:
>> I still don't understand how the Linuxaudio.org consortium is
>> represting anyone but its members (as is the case for all consortia,
>> which usually don't represent anyone but their own members).
>
> We all want to promote Linux Audio. The question is - what's the best
> way to do it?
>
> As i see it, the term 'linuxaudio' unifies the following:
> *linux audio developers
> *linux audio users
> *linux audio applications/projects
>
> We shoudln't further fragment the community by setting up more mailing
> lists
I might or might not agree with the above sentence (I don't,
especially because I don't quite digest people who tell me what I
should or shouldn't do) but in any case it answers a completely
different question.
As was already pointed out, mailing lists (as well as projects,
consortia, associations, whatever) get created and if there is no
interest they die (aside from the fact that the mailing lists
currently working on linuxaudio.org are quite consortium specific).
And anyway you can always Cc: two mailing lists if you feel a subject
is worth dicussing on both places.
> and using a domainname which can act as an entrance or a meeting
> point for all the 3 mentioned above.
The whole issue of the domain name still looks quite ridicolous to me,
given that:
- linuxaudio.org is not the only domain name available which could
fulfill the role of a "entrance" or "meeting point" (as Steve Harris
already pointed out);
- linuxaudio.org has been available for ages. Why didn't anybody care
(why didn't *you* care) to register it if it had such a symbolic
importance for the whole "community" (whatever this "community" is) ?
Anyway, as a member of the Consortium, as soon as the voting
mechanisms are set up, I will propose the creation of relevant
sub-domains to host (and/or redirect to) Libre Software audio
projects. For example:
jackit.linuxaudio.orgardour.linuxaudio.orgecasound.linuxaudio.org
and/or
news.linuxaudio.org (for general news)
help.linuxaudio.org (for general help)
Any proposals are appreciated.
> The second problem is - protection. OSS software can be easily
> abused as it's 'naked' so to speak. Having a consortium consisting
> of companies and projects seems like having both a wolf and a sheep
> in one bag.
I don't get your point, but I'm very interested in your (or anybody
else's) ideas on how Libre Software can and should be legally
protected from abuse (which, mind you, doesn't necessarily come from
companies, but anyway).
> Besides it's not clear whether the companies mentioned on the la.org
> members page have any relation to the applications mentioned on the
> same page.
I didn't understand this.
I've put consortium(a)lists.linuxaudio.org in Cc:, please keep it (and
remove linux-audio-dev if you feel this discussion is off topic here).
bye,
andrea
Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 13:54, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>> Dave Robillard <drobilla(a)connect.carleton.ca> writes:
>>
>> > ? Grow up. I mentioned a concern about the list being closed and
>> > all of a sudden I'm being flamed and made fun of? (The first thing
>> > I ever said in this discussion I might add) Maybe if you're trying
>> > to 'represent' people you should adopt a mannerism not
>> > characteristic of 14-year-old script kiddies.
>>
>> Sigh. I guess next time I'll have to add a longer disclaimer. For
>> the record, I didn't mean to take fun on you. I was trying (albeit
>> with poor results) to have some fun together (maybe <auto-ironic> is a
>> better tag, I don't know).
> 'Apology' accepted, and sorry for getting offended, but I'm sure you can
> understand - I voiced a concern, and essentially was lumped in with the
> slashdot "Micro$loth sux0rz" crowd.
I guess the real problem was that non-native speakers should never try
to be ironic or in any case try to bend a foreign language beside its
basic rules. Irony is difficult enough to express and understand in
one's own language.
> Anyway, I think the general lesson to be learned here (for everyone I
> mean) is to tread carefully and mind /everyone's/ opinions and
> concerns. Not all of us are simply mindbent on linux world domination
> (and some of us are).
I am (but I aim at Libre Software world domination, Linux is just a
very useful technical tool to do the trick for now).
> Some people take this whole freedom thing very seriously, and get
> mighty defensive when it's threatened. That is the whole point of
> our little operating system here, after all..
If you look at the consortium-p archives you'll see that I perfectly
agree. Actually, some of my positions were discussed and rejected
because they were too extreme (and as such difficult to implement) in
this regards. I had no problems with it, because as all things in
life you learn to do compromises if you think the goal is worth it.
And in the end you always have the option to opt out (or not to join
at all).
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).
And of course, that doesn't mean I want or I can represent anybody but
myself and the project I currently manage.
bye,
andrea
