22 Jan
2008
22 Jan
'08
1:14 p.m.
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:18 +0100, Benno Senoner wrote:
Well Dave P, what should I say ?
I think the attitude of certain LAD-ers is one of the reasons why
linux audio will
remain an irrelevant niche for a long time to come.
How can you you create a standard like LV2 and then make statements
like
"reaper is the enemy" ?
I think LV2 devs did not do their math correctly, since it seems that
every non GPLed app
is labeled as the enemy, they should change the LV2 license to GPL and
it will
avoid pollution by proprietary apps.
So LV2 devs, what was the true reason to release LV2 under LGPL ?
(which allows the API
being used by proprietary apps too)
Pieter summed it up well, LV2 devs should speak out whether they want
to create
a true standard or an open-source application standard only.
My name is "Dave", not "LV2", and I do not speak for "The LV2
Project" (if there is such a thing) every time I type a few words.
I will now, though:
LV2 is not GPLed to allow use by any and all software regardless of
license. Since LV2 is an open standard and VST is not, widespread LV2
support is a win for openness, even if the application itself is not.
Reaper or any other applications are more than welcome to implement LV2.
-DR-
P.S. I clearly accept that other people do not share my opinions on free
software. It's a shame you and Dave Phillips must waste so much breath
being closed minded and religious about it.