27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
5:47 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone
<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I find this hardly surprising, but sadly predictable. For all the
effort that went into not only OOM1 for USERS, and OOM2 for USERS,
you've implied that somehow we're "scum" because we didn't publicly
acknowledge the codebase, when we'd already been told to fork, and go
our own way. Why is that anything to do with you? We've attributed
correctly, and reached an agreement with the current code team, out of
mutual courtesy. Why do you feel you need to be notified, as if it's a
requirement? You should ask yourself why we picked Werner's great
work, with the formidable wealth of great midi tools under the skin.
I also find it sad that users came to us to get better tools, to do
simple tasks in applications, that they'd failed to get any enthusiasm
for after they'd done the rounds. You'd be surprised how many users
have turned up to get shortcuts (Yes,shortcuts), or navigation
improvements, or other fundamental workflow functions.
I'm not looking for a fight with anyone in the community, on the
contrary, i've put 3 and half solid years into trying to contribute
many years of experience into programs, and with the except of the
notable few devs who have great skills, class and style, and make the
effort to see the user's perspective, we, as a team with a particular
use case, got generally derided and dismissed. Fair enough, devs make
their own decisions, as do we.
But i won't tolerate your implication that we're somehow "not nice
people" because you didn't have a part in any discussion we might have
had.
Enough of this political nonsense, i'm off to do more for our project,
a GPL project, which hopefully will serve the needs of many users for
years to come, with tools user can enjoy for many years to come.
I'm not surprised at your swift attach, and tacky implications. On the
contrary, i'm only surprised it took you so long. No doubt you'll
continue this as long as it's newsworthy, so.....
Enjoy yourself,
Alex.
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject,
the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
--p