9 Apr
2004
9 Apr
'04
2:52 a.m.
As I nervously enter the fray... I work for Muse Research. And yes we
are using Linux. But no we aren't going to tell customers about it in
any obvious way. Most of them don't care, and would indeed be confused
by that piece of information.
We have a team with good knowledge of this market (former Opcode,
Passport, E-Mu), and have a good sense of our potential customers. They
want it to work well and sound good; most don't care what OS it is
running.
But we don't make any secret of it: Linux is great and is a great boon
to our company.
And obviously we will abide by the terms of the licenses of the software
we are making use of. It frightens me to hear a statement like "obvious
breach of the GPL license."
Please help me out with this: I thought we just had to make the sources
available (they will be available on our or via our web site), return
any changes we make to the developers (we haven't changed much but we
have contributed back to the Wine project, for instance), and not change
or remove the copyright notices from the source (which of course we
won't).
Am I off track? Thanks for any help ... mo
On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 08:37, Marek Peteraj wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 22:44, will(a)malefactor.org
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 04:08:34AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 21:29, will(a)malefactor.org wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:57:32AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Companies using Linux in musical gear besides Lionstracs:
Plugzilla (a
> > > > > rack that can play VSTs), Muse Receptor (similar concept),
Hartman
> > > > > Neuron (a synth). Unfortunately the others are based on pretty
> > > > > closed design and most don't even tell you that's based
on Linux.
> > > > > Perhaps their attitude will change
> > > > > in future.
> > > >
> > > > I just quickly checked their sites, and there's indeed absolutely
no
> > > > mention of using Linux. If they're all indeed using Linux, then
it's an
> > > > obvious breach of the GPL license.