23 Jan
2003
23 Jan
'03
12:57 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RonKuper(a)Cakewalk.com>
To: <linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 23 January, 2003 17:30
Subject: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on
control ramping]
and
I totaly disagree here: if Steinberg + MOTU + Cakewalk + Emagic + Plugins
developpers joind hands and decide to use a common standard I see very
little need in marketing and legal work. I think the problems are more
political than anything else and I can understand why steinberg and emagic
(for example) would prefer to hide a standard war behind closed doors
instead of on a public mailling list.
>>
In this context it's seems a little ridiculous that the MMA is requiring
members of the mailing list to sign on with $450.
<<<
The MMA is a trade association, akin to a standards body like the AES. Do
you also object to the fact that AES, IEEE, etc, charge membership dues, that they too hold evolving standards discussions for
members only? How
does the fact that this happens to be _software_ standard mandate that
dues
be waived?
Can you explain to us exactely what the MMA is offering in exchange of this
money? I don't see any cost associated with the need to create an open
plugin system: the only thing need I see is the good will of every one
involved to try and work together for the good of all. Mailling lists cost
nothing to create and just a little bit of administration (sourceforge or
savanah could host it without problems and for free). And I fail to see what
more we need that is so costly.
>>
Applying closed methods of communication, or at least requiring a sum of
money to be paid to have discussion rights is the equivalent of telling
us Open Source developers that either you don't understand what we are
doing and why or you totally disagree with the paradigm we work in.
<<<
This isn't about being for or against open source, or a lack of
understanding. This is about recognizing that developing and supporting a
standard requires legal work, marketing, publications, etc, and that these
cost money. Call it "old economy" if you must, but if you want to
interoperate with the major companies in the industry, the MMA is forum
where they gather, and the MMA has a cost structure associated with it.
[2] Design. This will be open to MMA members only.
If you want the legal
protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for
"stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining. Even some open-source
developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after
selling a very small number of units.
What protection does the MMA provides?
[4] Adoption. Once again, private to MMA members
only.
IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the commercial companies (many
of
whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join
the MMA, while a
sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives
us
2 standards, and nobody wins.
Better keep things really open then don't you think? That's the best way to
keep things on one track.
-Ron
Sebastien