Linux-audio-dev

linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

7513 discussions

Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 " isn't well thought out ?" LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)

by pete shorthose

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500 Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +0000, pete > shorthose wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +0000, pete > > > shorthose wrote: > > > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 > > > > Dave Robillard <dave(a)drobilla.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +0000, pete > > > > > shorthose wrote: > > > > > > virtually nobody cares what you think. > > > > > > how's that? > > > > > > > > > > Virtually nobody even knows who you > > > > > are, let alone what you think. How's > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very > > > > active on this list nor in the community > > > > in general. it's even truer in the wider > > > > context. so, pejorative implications > > > > aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement > > > > to make. quite what it has to do with the > > > > matter at hand, i'm not so sure. > > > > > > You started it, don't complain when you get > > > what's coming ;) > > > > ok. get back to me when you can justify your > > statement with something other then an ad > > hominem. > > Um... > > You say X to me. > I say X to you. hardly. even if you missed the point (which i doubt, having sparred with you on irc numerous times, to altogether more humorous effect) i even explained on irc that it was not intended as an insult, that i was illustrating an invalid debating tactic by using it against you. in order to tackle it directly you cannot avoid undermining your own use of it. and you knew it too. hence you changed the subject to how i was a nobody and hence irrelevant. now, in the scheme of things, that may even be true, but it doesn't make me wrong. so there, that's cleared that up. _again_. > You accuse me of ad hominem. indeed. you didn't tackle my point directly, preferring instead to question my right to criticise you at all for reasons unrelated to the topic of discussion. text book ad hominem. i doubt that even you would attempt to dispute that. (well, perhaps doubt is too strong a word) > I'll get back to you when you know something > about discourse other than being able to quote > fancy words you don't seem to understand. you just served up some fresh insults and still didn't justify what you said. i tell you, i'm not in the least bit fucking surprised. now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy combination of pejoratives and craft them into a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket because i'm well and truly done talking to you. i might as well be debating an ATM. cheers, pete.

17 years, 7 months

[OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

by Mlf Conv

Hi, I'd like to clarify a few questions regarding GPL and LinuxSampler. The GPL implicitly prohibits third parties from selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, by only allowing the following, quoting GPL: "...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee..." "... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..." "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Basically: 1. selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL and 2. charging a fee for distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL / charging for a physical act of transferring a copy are 2 entirely different things. When you sell a computer program you are charging for the costs(human resources - developers, designers; technical resources - computers etc) you have put into *developing a computer program* plus you are charging an adittional fee based on your estimation of value that your product would have on the market(offer/demand stuff) When you distribute a computer program or charge a fee for physical act of transferring a copy you are charging for the costs you have put into *distribution of a computer program* plus you are charging an additional fee based on your estimation of value that your *distribution service* would have on the market. This means that: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. 2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. No.1 of course has an exception, you would have to sell a computer that has a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL installed on it as a part of distribution, for the purpose of selling the computer(for example with preinstalled Linux distribution) No.2 has several scenarios: a) a distribution is an obvious case where a given computer program licensed under the terms of GPL is a part of a bigger software product, the sole purpose of which is to distribute, thus a distribution is fully GPL compliant whether made available for transfer at no charge, or selled as a package in stores. b) a scenario where computer program must not be modified in order to become part of another comuter program "...thus forming a work based on the Program..." This means that if a computer program as a whole, whether modified or not, becomes part of another computer program at *source-code* level, then the terms of GPL apply to such derived work. You can derive a work from another at source code level(by modifying the original, by adding code to it while not modifying the original, or both) but you can also derive a work at binary level. And if fact, the GPL doesn't differentiate between source-code and binary level derived works: "...any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof..." So suppose a software developer goes on developing a cool GUI for a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL which he intends to sell. The GUI talks to the GPLed computer program via some kind of IPC. He can claim that he's charging for his own program and distributing the GPLed computer program along with it, since the two are in fact 2 separate applications that communicate through IPC. This might be true, but consider the following - the GPLed computer program is capable of functioning as a standalone application, whereas the GUI application is practically useless without the GPLed computer program, ans is thus a derived work at *binary-level*. The GPL states, that "...in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program...", which means, whether at source code level or binary level. This has the following consequences: A proprietary computer program that is not capable of functioning as a standalone computer program, and is communicating with a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, in order to ensure its purpose and proper functioning, is a derived work under the terms of GPL, thus the terms of GPL apply to such work, and a software developer of such proprietary computer program is *also* violating the terms of GPL by not distributing the computer program licensed under the terms of GPL for the sole purpose of distributing it. So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception "LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception at all, and is already covered by GPL. If someone finds such interpretation too vague for his own taste, he can simply make an amendment to the GPL license, stating that you can only charge for distribution of Program for the sole purpose of distributing it, but not for the actual Program, which would basically equal to the above mentioned exception. Also note that this only applies to *third parties*, not the actual copyright holder. He can issue another license if someone finds GPL too restrictive for his needs, and charge for it. So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program. Marek

17 years, 7 months

Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Dave Robillard: > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:08 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: >> - My usual grunge: unless you want me accidentally >> destroy some very expensive equipment which is not >> even mine, the generated JACK apps >> >> MUST NOT AUTOCONNECT --- NEVER --- TO ANYTHING. > > Hear hear. This setting really must be moved into Jack. Let the user > specify the auto-connect ports (or none). Yes, exactly. And by default, the auto-connect ports are the same as the physical ones. Those with special setups are also the ones who must make special configurations.

17 years, 7 months

[OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

by blue

Hello everybody, i post to this list the official position of Brett Smith, Licensing Compliance Engineer at Free Software Foundation. He hasn't time to partecipate to the list but i could forward his position: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The GPL makes a distinction between charging for a copy of the program, and charging for a license. If you were charging for the license, that means that you could require *everyone* who receives the software to pay you a fee, even if they get it from someone else, and that's what's against the rules. If you're charging only for the copy that you provide, the license doesn't care about the details of the transaction. Whether you're distributing the software by itself, as part of a collection of software, or preinstalled on some kind of physical hardware, you can charge a fee for it and still comply with the GPL. You can see the practical results of this distinction in our FAQ; if you start at <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMo…>, and read the two questions after that one, you'll see the answers change from "Yes" to "No." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.s. If anybody has further questions you could contact Brett writing at licensing(a)(NOSPAM)fsf.org with this subject : gnu.org #354583. Cheers, Stefano

17 years, 7 months

Nekosynth, GPL, and commercial and non-commercial use.

by Gordon JC Pearce

Just to clear up a few recent misunderstandings that have been aired on the list, I'd like to clarify my position on the various nekosynth plugins (that is, nekobee, nekostring, nekoplunk, the organ, and the as-yet unreleased and waaay unfinished Hera plugin): You may use these plugins in accordance with the GPL for any purpose. If you want to produce a piece of commercial hardware that utilises a version of my plugins, that's fine - but I'd like you to send me some demo hardware. Toys are good, and you can be sure that your hardware will always be supported by the freshest versions of the software. You may use these plugins on any recording, commercial or non-commercial. If you make a shitload of money from a record where you use one of my plugins, I'd like it if you mention me on your website or maybe somewhere in the sleeve notes. If you could see your way clear to providing a short demo (30 seconds or so) that would be really great, and will earn you the right to ask for special custom versions. You may sell copies of the software, as long as this complies with the GPL. In general, include the source if you've modified it, and leave my copyright message in. Simple, eh? On the subject of selling software, I'd like to offer the following range of products. For £5/6.75EUR/US$10 you can get all the nekosynth plugins, in their current state, on a CD. Not only that, but I'll throw in the full Subversion dump, all tagged-stable tarballs (even from before I was using svn), and the demo tunes. For £25/33EUR/$50, you can get the nekosynth Producer Pack, which comes with some drum loops and six cans of McEwans Export. For £50/66EUR/$100, you get nekosynth Studio Edition, which comes with the drum loops, 12 cans of Deuchars IPA, and some random electronic components I hoovered up off the floor in my studio. For £750/1000EUR/(not applicable in US markets) you can get nekosynth Super Mega Fun Box edition, which comes with the drum loops, a Cheetah Telecaster copy, and a 1993 Ford Escort with six month's tax and a year's MOT (but no beer, because we can't possibly encourage drink-driving). Finally, for the true enthusiast, you can order the nekosynth Ultimate Eternal Natural Beauty edition, for the low, low price of £36,000 (not available outside UK). This has the full source tree, CNC-milled onto 8'x4' slabs of natural Ballachulish slate, packaged in mahogany presentation cases, and a free Leyland Roadrunner 7.5 tonne truck to ensure that you can take your copy of the source code with you wherever you go! Now you can't say any fairer than that, can you? Gordon

17 years, 7 months

LinuxSampler or JACK or what is the trouble?

by Julien Claassen

Hi everyone! I've still got some problems with my LS. I can load smaller gigsampler (upto 650M for sure) and even larger ones, bUT... But when I load my Old Lady Grand (1.3G) it loads perfectly, but when I try to connect LS to JACK the following happens: [Linuxampler console] [copeous output] Caching initial samples...OK cannot complete execution of the processing graph (Resource temporarily unavaila ble) zombified - calling shutdown handler Killed [JACK console] [copious output] Noise-shaped dithering at 16 bits jackd watchdog: timeout - killing jackd Aborted what's the trouble. I just compiled JACK 0.109.1 (svn from 29.01.2008) and LS 0.5.1 (tarball). My kernel is: host # uname -a Linux bach 2.6.23.1-rt11 #2 PREEMPT RT Sun Dec 30 22:43:22 CET 2007 i686 GNU/Linux I've got 512M RAM (no Xserver running), so mostly unused. I compiled my LS with 8 diskstreams min and 140 max, and max 128 voices, the rest was decided by the configure script. I even tried reverting the disk-stream options and the voices to normal. Jack was compiled without a lot of drivers I don't need, and with --enable-resize --enable-timestamps --enable-sse --enable-mmx --enable-optimization-by-compiler I start my jackd with: jackd --timeout 4000 -R -d alsa -d hw:1 -r 48000 -H -M -p 256 -z shaped I've got a 1.8Ghz CPU and my soundcard is an MAudio Delta 1010LT. One last note: I checked memory sage with top: Even with the big gigasample it only takes 41% and CPU-usage is marginal. So where would you suspect the most possible source for my problem? Kindest regards Julien -------- Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles) ======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ======== http://ltsb.sourceforge.net the Linux TextBased Studio guide ======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: ======= http://www.juliencoder.de

17 years, 7 months

[REMINDER] A bit of common sense.

by Marc-Olivier Barre

Hi, May I remind all of you of a few facts : - We have currently 736 members on this list. Those of you math lovers will have guessed that sending an email to this list implies having (736 - number who have disabled mail delivery ~= 700) receipients. - When one of you sends bull crap on this list, 700 people can have the pleasure of receiving (reading?) it. - When someone flames over a topic that has been debated countless times, without reaching an interesting conclusion, I would say at least 600 people would have rather read the old arguments in the archives. You might also want to read the Linux Audio Dev's homepage : http://lad.linuxaudio.org/subscribe/lad.html Interesting quote : "The Linux Audio Development Mailing List is unmoderated. No matter what you post, the list will see it. Please take responsibility, keep your postings on topic and help maintain the friendly and respectful atmosphere that we have here" Thank you to keep those in mind when posting. __________________ Marc-Olivier Barre, MarcO'Chapeau.

17 years, 7 months

Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas

by Kjetil S. Matheussen

Le 29 janv. 08 à 23:36, Yann Orlarey a écrit : > Hi Fons, > > Here is a quick solution using Faust : > > import("filter.lib"); > > line(i) = vgroup("line %i", *(g) : fdelay2(1024, d)) > with { g = vslider("gain (dB)", -60, -60, 4, 0.1) : > db2linear : > smooth(0.995); > d = nentry("delay (samp)", 0, 0, 1000, 0.1) : > smooth(0.995); }; > > process = hgroup("", par(i, 10, line(i)) ); > > The first line imports a library of filters (written in Faust by > Julius > Smith) that includes several fractional delays based on Lagrange > interpolation. > > Then we define a 'line' that combines in sequence (':' operator) a > gain > and a fractional delay encapsulated in a vertical layout. Here we use > fdelay2 a fractional delay with a second order Lagrange interpolation. > It can be replaced by fdelay3 or fdelay4 if better interpolations are > needed. > > The gain value g is defined by a vertical slider (in dB) which is > converted in a linear value and then filtered to avoid clicks during > rapid movements. The delay value d is defined by a numerical entry box > also filtered to avoid clicks. The parameter m is the maximum size of > the delay and should be a power of 2. > Wow, that is cool. I wonder about making some faust inspired macros for snd-rt to make user interfaces more integrated. I think the snd-rt program below should do the same as the faust version now, although I'm not too sure about the correctnes of the delay interpolation and filtering. They both sounds the same though, I think: (set! (rt-safety) 0) (definstrument (line n dialog) (let ((del (make-delay 1 :type mus-interp-lagrange :max-size 20000)) (length (make-glide-var 0 100)) (gain (make-glide-var 0 0.005))) (<slider> dialog (<-> "gain " n) 0 0 2 (lambda (val) (write-glide-var gain val)) 100) (<slider> dialog (<-> "delay " n) 1 1 20000 (lambda (val) (write-glide-var length val)) 1) (<rt-play> (lambda () (set! (mus-length del) (read-glide-var length)) (out 0 (* (read-glide-var gain) (delay del (in 0)))))))) (letrec* ((exit (lambda () (rte-silence!) (-> dialog hide))) (dialog (<dialog> "Delay line stuff" exit " exit " exit "Stop" rte-pause "Start" rte-continue))) (for-each (lambda (n) (line n dialog)) (map number->string (iota 10))) (-> dialog show)) The faust program uses 2.1% percent cpu on my xp2800, while the snd-rt program now uses 3.8% percent cpu. The reason for the speed increase for the snd-rt program is because the scheme list traversals and vector accesses is removed from the dsp code. Instead the scheduler just runs 10 realtime instances. To run the program, just paste the code above into snd-ls' terminal.

17 years, 7 months

JACK 0.109.2 released

by Paul Davis

This is a maintainance release of JACK. Three important issues are fixed: * the old ALSA PCM port names are available, so that applications that either hardcode or have existing patching information containing these names will function. * the use of popen(3) to invoke jackd to determine the server directory has been fixed so that it works on systems that have closed a security risk with popen(). This was preventing correct startup on OS X, in particular. * USX2Y driver updates to enable JACK MIDI devices to show up in raw-usb mode (previously, raw-usb mode didn't initialize or call MIDI drivers properly). Download from either jackaudio.org or sourceforge: http://jackaudio.org/downloads/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.109.2.tar.gz http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/jackit/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.109.2…

17 years, 7 months

Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

by Marek

On Jan 30, 2008 5:15 PM, Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp(a)gjcp.net> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 January 2008 16:10:31 you wrote: > > > Would be so kind and write thorough analysis which would show the > > *all* of my claims as untrue or unjustified? Please GO AHEAD. > > Just shut up and go away, please. Maybe you can come back and join the fun > when you've actually read and understood the GPL. > Give me the facts that i don't understand the GPL. Otherwise you shut up and let the others discuss it, the thread will die if nobody is interested in replying. It is marked as [OT] so you're free to filter it out if you don't like it. Thank you.

17 years, 7 months

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

2003

2002

Linux-audio-dev