21 Jan
2003
21 Jan
'03
7:57 p.m.
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 22.57, Steve Harris wrote:
I don't think we can prevent someone from creating binary compatible
hosts or plugins using their own headers instead of ours. As long as
we can't prove they just copied our work, and then extended and/or
changed it, we can't do anything about it, I think.
[...]
It's not that strange, really. We just do what we like best most of
the time, and that generally means hacking away on various little
projects that we find interesting. Whether they're useful or Yet
Another <whatever> is secondary to most hackers. And of course, "I
can do it much better!" (although no one would admit ever thinking
that ;-), and running your own project is more fun.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 10:00:13PM +0100, David
Olofson wrote:
Well, AU doesn't deal with GUIs at all, AFAIK. Porting it to Linux
should be doable, I guess, but I'm afraid the situation is rather
similar to that with VST; most plugins depend heavily on either
platform specific stuff, or proprietary technology for their GUIs.
As to AU, I think the use of Objective C is a
serious obstacle. I
also dislike the way they handle scheduling, and the general lack
of consideration for API overhead... But that's another topic!
I dont know that much about AU. I like objective C, but it has some
performace issues. In some ways it would make sense for linux to
support it, it would make porting plugins between MacOS X and Linux
easier, especially if you can make X11 guis for it. Is it possible to read teh specs without becoming
tainted?
Well, at least you don't have to sign an NDA to read it, but other
than that, it would be the usual copyright stuff, basically - but
IANAL.
[...]
On a similar
note, what if someone *wants* to destroy XAP and
LADSPA, and deploys an embrace and extend attack on them? I think
we'd better state that forked projects must not use the original
prefixes, or something... Though, we can't prevent people from
reimplementing LADSPA or XAP, thus bypassing that requirement.
I'm not sure you could do that while retaining the GPL. BTW,
that's rather interesting, put in relation to the number of
Linux audio hackers as well. How many and how long does it
*really* take to create a complete Linux based studio solution?
Bizarrely, I think we actually spend more time reinventing the
wheel than the commercial guys. We have a lot of low level library
reuse, but everyone and his dog wants to write a WAV editor. Theres
also a shortage of maths, electronics and graphic design skills
compared to commercial developers (for plugins at least).
Yeah... The ones that are truly interested do *only* DSP hacking, and
the rest generally don't deal with audio at all. Besides, even if you
have other skills than hacking, hacking just takes too much of your
time. GUI design and graphics aren't things hackers in general spend
much time on, be there artistic potential or not.
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---