4 Oct
2003
4 Oct
'03
2:11 p.m.
Sorry to bother you all again: just some thoughts...
- I don't wont to be too negative with respect to the GMPI effort,
because it's a great chance for free software developers to take part in
the discussion of the spec of what could be become an important
standard.
- BTW, after the "Phase 1" of GMPI developing process, developers who
are not member of MMA will have to sit and wait. Hoping:
a) that the final standard will be similar to what she/he wanted (i.e.
what was decided on the mailing list);
b) that the license and the way the standard is designed will be really
"free".
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 04:42, RonKuper(a)Cakewalk.com wrote:
Phase 1 of the GMPI working group's effort is to
determine what is required
of GMPI: What sorts of capabilities are needed to support existing products
and customers? What are the emerging new directions that must be addressed?
[...]
Following the collection of requirements in Phase 1,
the members of the MMA
will meet to discuss and evaluate proposals, in accordance with existing MMA
procedures for developing standards. There will be one or more periods for
public comment prior to adoption by MMA members.
If you are a developer with a serious interest in the design of this
specification, and are not currently a member of the MMA, we urge you to
consider joining. Fees are not prohibitively high even for a small
commercial developer. Your fees will pay for administration, legal fees and
marketing. Please visit http://www.midi.org for more information about
membership.
I know that "free" is a vague word, and we may not all need
the same
kind of freedom (speaking about software). Probably the best way to
proceed to design an API with contribution by many people on a mailing
list is to define the license (and target plugin developers and users)
as *the first step* (though may take some extra initial time).
I want an API that may be extensible; but doing audio programming just
in my limited free time (here "free" is clear:) as a hobby, I want those
extensions to be contributed back to the community (in the LGPL sense);
I want to develop open source plugins and would like others to do the
same, but I want to allow skilled company to write wonderful plugins and
to earn money for that (again in the LGPL sense).
I certainly don't want to pay *any* money (at least to be payed:-) to be
involved in a project that will make earn money to other people or
association (unless it is Amnesty International or that kind).
I want to be involved in the design process, not just to wait for it to
be completed by MMA members.
What I want is an API with the spirit of free software (in the GNU
sense). If XAP will abandoned, maybe I should simply create my API, host
and plugins. I would like to call it GAP (GNU Audio Plugin)
(though I still have to look for name conflicts with other projects).
Perhaps someone else will use it and will want to contribute it.
Maybe I have only 2 alternative:
a) Hope that MMA will reconsider the design phase.
b) Develop my own API (hopefully with other free software developers).
c) Don't care, and do other things in my free time.
- I'm having difficulties to follow the item on the agenda as some of my
ideas for an ideal (i.e. to be used in many years to come) API are not
completely in accordance with some concept of the agenda.
Ciao,
Marco