13 Nov
2002
13 Nov
'02
1:24 p.m.
Let me ask another question in this area. Could
someone explain the
implications of GPL/LGPL WRT proprietary applications that interface to Alsa
& Jack, along with their incumbent support programs like kaconnect and
qjackconnect?
alsa-lib is LGPL'ed, as is libjack. proprietary software can use these
libraries with no implications for their own code. if they choose to,
or need to, make changes in the LGPL'ed library code, those changes
must be made available under the LGPL.
If Jack and Alsa were pushed in technical business
development circles as
a way for Company A to enter the Linux market and be able to work together
with other existing applications, do the GPL/LGPL licenses of Alsa & Jack
create issues for Company A's proprietary code base?
not unless they have lawyers who don't understand this stuff.
I see the open nature of Linux as best exemplified
in the lower level
portions of the audio stack, and less so at the application level for the
reasons we've been discussing. As a person who is in business, but not in
this area, I have suspicions that these are the issues that are keeping
retail applications out of the Linux markets.
a web page on the ardour site says:
"Your participation in the development and use of Ardour can help
bring to the audio world the same kinds of benefits that open source
development have accrued to the world of web servers. The most
widely use web server ("apache") contains code written by hundreds
if not thousands of people, and has been subject to continual
evolution and improvement. By contributing cash, comments, insight,
code, feedback or even just enthusiasm, you will help keep the
project moving forward towards a day when the best DAW is open for
everyone to study, improve and most of all, use and enjoy."
*that's* what "open" means to me. i don't care how good ProTools (or
Nuendo or Paris or ...) is - i could always find ways to make it
better if i had the source code. the same applies to almost ever other
proprietary audio software out there (1). but i can't get the source
code, so part of the promise of what we are doing here is to create
the necessary cultural artifacts necessary to move at least some
significant chunk of the audio software field towards this kind of
"open".
yes, it will be very hard to make (significant) money via traditional
retail channels with this sort of stuff. thats OK, i think.
--p
(1) there are a few exceptions. a recent one might be the Native Instruments'
FM7, which strikes me as just about perfect in every way.