20 Sep
2013
20 Sep
'13
11 a.m.
On jeu. 19/09/13 17:50 , IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig(a)iem.at> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-09-19 05:31, hermann meyer wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. :-( Please don't let you lead from the things
you didn't like, let you lead from the things you like instead. I
guess then it's necessary to let you know that we use /as well/ a
fork of your work, the zita-convolver library, in the guitarix
project. But we leave your copyright untouched, and the fork will
only come in use, when the user set a explicit compile flag. We
didn't promote it, or force the fork. Ordinary your original code
is in use. We do it to use ffmpeg instead fftw3 FFT, which perform
better on ARM devices.
but this sounds like the perfect opportunity to not do a simple fork,
but to send patches to upstream so fons' aeolus could support both
fftw3 and ffmpeg FFTs.
it might be a win-win situation, where not only more than just the
original aeolus users can profit from fons' work (because you use his
code) but also more than just your users can profit from your work
(because you changes are included into upstream aeolus).
I fully agree. As the main fvwm-crystal developer, I know how hard it can
be to get good users returns. I find it scary if even developers cannot
share with each others.
I begun to write my own fvwm-crystal functions because I wanted them,
and when I was done, I contacted upstream. At first, I get no answer, so
I done a fork. Some months later, it was a discussion about my fork
on fvwm-crystal email list, and that time I get in touch with upstream,
and my work was incorporated into Crystal. Form there, I am now the
main contributor. It is not always easy, but so is life.
As the main fvwm-crystal developer, I just don't have the time to check
what can be the special requirements of each distribution or each user
that use it. And I find it very sad when they make modifications and
don't contribute them. From users, I can understand that very well, but
from developers, I think they just miss a very important point about FOS :
a community is always about solidarity.
That imply we must communicate more with each other. I think this is
a big problem, and not only related to Fons work, or the LAD, but to the
whole community. And it is not easy to solve if developers that make
patches just say nothing to the original developers. We are living
in an individualistic society, so are commercial softwares, but with
FOS, peoples must really take on them to communicate more about
what they are doing, that especially when they are making interesting
patches or forks.
Dominique
fmasdr
IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ [1]
iEYEARECAAYFAlI7D0UACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTc+gCdGdTegTkJmgsRvZ5xz39AyxCe
VEIAnRFYLyRpmcUOUsPZ8jsZ5ceuo21g
=v6Hr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://awebmail.vtx.ch/parse.php?redirect=http://www.enigmail.net/
[2]
http://awebmail.vtx.ch/parse.php?redirect=http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listi
nfo/linux-audio-dev