My $.02, I get payed for implementation, not promises. ie I promise if
you install my software, it will work. I get paid for making it work.
Now granted I am not getting rich by any means, and I dont have a
workforce to support, so its kind of like comparing apples to oranges
;-) But I do see the turnkey market as a place that Linux audio systems
can excel in. Because you dont have to support Bill G to produce a
product. A lot of the Network appliances are going down this same road.
On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 21:55, Mark Knecht wrote:
Paul,
Thanks you (very much actually) for the clarifications. They are
extremely helpful.
It's no wonder no one can make any money being in business of selling
Linux software applications.
I do not see how a company could afford to invest in this area, short of
staying closed-source. Very difficult for them, so no wonder there are few
companies calling Linux developers.
Defining a business model that works in this environment will be an
interesting problem to solve. On to thinking about hardware...
Cheers,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-dev-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-dev-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Davis
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:06 PM
To: linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] image problem
Help me understand what libardour does exactly.
It may not be the way
the
code is arranged, but if I take the libardour
database and break it into
two
pieces, the audio stuff and the GUI, and I obey
the GPL for that code, why
FYI: libardour doesn't contain any GUI code at all, or have any notion
of any kind of UI at all.
does something that I write that links to it have
to be GPL'ed? My code is
my code. Paul's code is his. He's made the interface public. Does the GPL
license really say that if someone tries to talk to a piece of GPL'ed code
they have to make all of their work public also?
"talk to" is a loose and inexact term.
if you link against a piece of GPL'ed code, and you distribute your
code, then your code must be made available under the GPL. it doesn't
matter whether you run-time, dynamically or statically link - if your
code makes explicit calls to code in the GPL'ed library, then you
can't release your code under anything except the GPL.
put another way: you can use my work as you let everybody else use
yours in the same way. don't want to play? no problem, just don't use
my code.
if your code can operate normally without my code - that is, mine just
acts as an extension to your already highly functional program - then
the dynamic linking "clause" in the GPL will allow you to link against
my code without requiring your release to use the GPL. GPL 3.0 *might*
close this "hole".
--p
ps. libardour is GPL'ed rather than LGPL'ed for precisely the scenario
mark was outlining.
--
drh(a)niptron.com
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds.
-- Albert Einstein
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But
they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- Carl Sagan