23 Sep
2016
23 Sep
'16
5:12 p.m.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Patrick Shirkey
<
pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com> wrote:
is
There are no fields I know of where open source leads in terms of end-user
visible software applications.
And in terms of non-end-user visible software applications, Linux has
permeated just as deeply into pro audio as anywhere else (perhaps even
more
so).
If this is correct the trick appears to be having strong brand awareness
and releasing the API on github?
On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
> [...]
>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest
parts
> of
> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo).
What?
I repeat: that's not an innovation.
Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation?
Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link momentum behind it, along with the apple-style
dictated protocol: take
it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design
discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and
more
like a floss-like benevolent dictator style
(think jack, or LV2).
The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually
does
closed-source proprietary software publishes an
API and reference
implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too.
That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that!
Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it,
pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the
hard part.
Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source
projects leading the field in other markets.
There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes
contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without
having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights.
No matter what Ableton or anyone may or may not write, you cannot release
something under GPLv2 and retain "explicit ownership/control", and
branding
rights are of limited value in this domain.
Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the
Linux
Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we
still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players?
Because we've done a fucking piss-poor job of licensing, packaging and
promoting technology in ways that make sense to the overwhelming majority
of developers and users.
Do you have any idea how many companies I've
interacted who are 100% aware
of JACK (and maybe even a little in awe of some of what it can do) and may
even have developed versions of their software that use it, but that
cannot
figure out how they could ever deploy them?
I don't know how many but if they have gone to the trouble of creating the
port then all they have to do is package and release it. They don't even
really need to invest in marketing it because we do that for them.
The issue is not how to deploy but when to deploy. The generous POV is
that everyone except Harrison is still waiting for the market to "mature".
The cynical POV is that something is actively stopping them from taking
the plunge.
According to some reports it's a good way to make some extra cash money
without having to actually release anything publicly. Just mentioning that
you have a Linux port is enough to get the funds flowing for "alternate"
development priorities.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd