27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
4:14 p.m.
Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex
stone<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You need to settle down there
Paul.
There would be no oom2 if you had of kept up with your coding. You know
well my pipeline used ardour. Till one faithful day that you told me to
put my monitoring while recording request in mantis. You know well that
not naming the project has nothing to do with your anger.
It is no secret that it was muse2. They suggested we fork. We wanted to
stay with them.
Get a grip and have a nice day.
Thanks!
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject,
the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be
a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
--p
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev