19 Dec
2004
19 Dec
'04
3:54 p.m.
On Saturday 18 December 2004 08:31 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote:
Well then you just cut off a large potential user base. How that serves to
spread the gospel must be counter intuitive. Why don't you make an official
statement and post a link, because people want to know.
Guy, I don't need the source code. I really don't. You may, but I don't.
Sometimes I want to see it. Sometimes I need it to make a binary because there
is no other option. I like the option of having it available. Sometimes
I even poke it with a stick and let the author know if any maggots fall out,
but it's not a requirement. If a prog sounds interesting, I want to spend
most of the introduction time running the code to see if it's even worth
taking the time to download the source.
I say I don't care about access to the source code, which is the developers
melieu, you say you don't care about the runtime, which is the users melieu.
It's two sides of the same coin, so let's all just do what we gotta do
instead of going around in circles.
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 22:44, John Check wrote:
Another person that knows what I care about? Look, my OSS credentials are
impeccable and my dedication to doing what I think is right is certifiably
uncontestable.
I'm a stickler for abiding by the copyright holders terms "." It _ALL_
rests on respect for the copyright holders terms. You want respect you gotta
give respect, but you gotta stand up for it to earn it as well.
A) This is Linux Audio list not EFF. The S/N ratio here sucks as it is. (oh
sweet irony)
B) The GPL is not the be all end all ideal of licenses.
C) We don't, nor will we ever live in an ideal world.
The above is my official statement with regard to any further challenges to my
moral standing.
My point all along in the discussion is: Don't challenge the license because
it's not your business, it's the authors. You can knock down the code, the
runtime, or the spit shine on the guy's mother's army shoes for all I care,
but it's the height of hypocrisy to disrespect the copyright holders
distribution terms.
On Saturday 18 December 2004 10:20 am, Dave
Robillard wrote:
Simply because they are not aware of the idea of open source at
all(people that use other operating systems).
Open source is about flexibility, control, trust, quality and eternal
life of your favorite application. You should care even if you don't
know how to code at all. On Fri, 2004-17-12 at 15:28 -0500, John Check
wrote:
pWn3d
On Friday 17 December 2004 01:04 pm, Paul
Brossier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> > future"). But he made this offer: "However if someone makes a
> > Debian package for it, I'll be happy to distribute it."
>
> oh well, without (!) the source code there is no point anyway...
Nah, nobody is interested in running the app, just dickering about
licensing...
Frankly, I _really_ don't think there's room for elitism coming from
LAU because non-free software currently kicks our asses up and down
the street as far as functionality goes. What's good to advance the
cause is good apps. The source doesn't matter. Hell, I'd pay a
dollar not to hear such silliness before I'd complain about
gratis-ware
Correction: What's good to advance YOUR personal cause is good apps. The source doesn't matter to YOU.
Source of the apps, not source code. All of the good things about free
software are not constants that apply in every case or context.
It's the fact's Jack, for most people source code is worth bupkis. Linux as an audio platform is about the
_runtime_. Linux audio
_development_ is about the source code.
Not really, it's both about sourcecode and runtime. That's the main
difference.
> If you want to walk the
> altruism walk, you do IIRC, have the skills to fix what you see as evil.
*crickets*
*tumbleweed*
*coyote*
I have a hard time
believing Andreas' statement is coming from a need to audit every line of
code on his system.
You don't need to audit it as long as you have the source code itself.
Marek