On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:12:48PM +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: I'm trying to fit the pieces together. 1. JUCE is GPLed 2. A Linux version of Traktion would use JUCE 3. This version would not be GPLed Seems like a contradiction. What am I missing ? -- FA

Hi, FYI, here goes the response from JUCE's author to my original post, which I think is of interest to the LA* ... sorry for the cross-post. Cheers. -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc(a)rncbc.org ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: Tracktion, JUCE and Linux From: "Julian Storer" <jules(a)rawmaterialsoftware.com> Date: Tue, April 26, 2005 17:13 To: "Rui Nuno Capela" <rncbc(a)rncbc.org> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi there Hi there Yes, well spotted, it's taken longer than I hoped to get around to the linux port, but we're finally getting there! And I would indeed be very grateful for any help on the audio/midi side of things, as I'm a complete newbie on linux, and have no idea where to begin! So if you or any of the LADs want to have a go at filling in the audio stuff or pointing me in the right direction, I'd be very happy to work with you on it. Not sure of the best way to handle collaboration though - I've only taken a few bits from other people, and it's generally involved them sending me something they've written, and then me re-writing it because it's not done in quite the way I like it! Oh, and I've already applied for a sourceforge account now, so will host the stuff on there as well in future. Cheers Jules

Alfons Adriaensen wrote: This mailing list should not be used to distribute unfounded insinuations or slanders. Have a look at the development process used for the Linux kernel. There are pretty strict rules for the code and many non-regular contributors are not aware of them. Sometimes the code is changed so that it follows the rules and in other cases it simply is rejected. Cheers, Andreas BTW: I agree that dual licensing can lead to problems.

Thanks Rui, And hello to all the LADs, as I've just joined the list. Thought I'd better make an appearance, as I've been getting discussed on here for a while now... (I'm the author of Tracktion and Juce). Right.. introductions over, a quick rant: Alfons: I expect an apology for your comment. I'm very rarely annoyed by things that people post on forums, but you've misunderstood a passing comment I made, and extrapolated it to suggest that I'm some kind of thief. All I meant was that on the couple of occasions when people (friends of mine, in fact) have *voluntarily* contributed code to my project, I ended up restructuring it because I didn't like the their coding style. I don't steal code, and don't expect to be randomly accused of doing so by people who know nothing about me. ..right.. I'll calm down now.. Anyway, as far as collaboration on Juce goes - let me try to sum up my feelings on the matter: - Yes, I'd love to get some help from you linuxy people on this - I know nothing about jack/alsa, and I'm very busy with many other projects, so it'd be a long time before I could get round to researching it myself. - Yes, it's a dual-license project. So if you want to contribute, you'd need to be happy about me taking over the copyright of any stuff you send me. Obviously that's your personal decision, and please, I don't have time to get drawn into endless boring discussions about the morality of dual-licensing! My views on the dual-license is that it keeps everything free for you GPL guys, and I get to make a (very small) bit of cash in return for my 5 years hard work. - Ok, I admit it, I'm a control freak about the code in Juce, so you'd also have to be willing to let me rip your stuff to shreds and butcher it to suit my sensibilities! (In fact, I think I'd probably prefer messy, sketchy code that I can tidy up, rather than immaculate code that isn't quite the way I like it!). If anyone is interested in helping, there are already stubs in the linux-specific codebase for audio and midi, though there's no proper test app for it (I was obviously using tracktion as my test app..). I'd probably need to enhance the jucedemo project to include more audio and midi test stuff. Best thing would be to contact me and we could discuss it a bit - I've a million other things to do, but it'd be cool to get this going! Cheers Jules Rui Nuno Capela wrote:

with all due respect to Jan, I would point out that the Ardour project requires this as well. this does not seem to have daunted anyone from contributing. i do not claim copyright on pre-existing code that is used in Ardour, which is why the startup message credits copyright for portions of ardour to a few other people (steve harris in particular, the person who wrote libxml++ and a guy who worked with me on the undo/redo system in a generic way unrelated to ardour). i do this because if i ever want to negotiate a non-GPL license arrangement with ACompanyWhoWantsMeToRetireAnotherTime, then i need control of all the copyrights. the fact that ardour is linked against several GPL'ed libraries in non-trivial ways makes it hard to see how any non-GPL'ed instance could ever exist, but hey, my wallet would be happy :) --p

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:33:02AM +0100, Julian Storer wrote: Jules, I did not suggest that you were doing anything illegal, and as long as what you do is legal, you certainly are not a thief. But I do apologize, since the formulation of my comment did indeed leave room for it to be interpreted in the way you do. And, as you write, I do not know you and should have given you at least the benefit of doubt. What I still do find disturbing is that you claim your project to be GPL-ed. The dual license scheme effectively allows any user to buy him/herself out of his/her obligations under the GPL. The GPL itself does not AFAIK allow for such a buy-out, so as far as I can see it just doesn't apply. I don't see the point. If you completely rewrite it - for whatever reason - the copyright on the new version is yours anyway. I don't have to be happy about it. -- FA

Oh god - I said I wouldn't get drawn into a licensing discussion here.. Ok, this is my last post on the subject - I find writing code more satisfying than discussing the finer philosophical points of it. I'm certainly not trying to exploit anyone here - this isn't big-business. Imagine if someone did write an entire linux audio/midi system for me, and if I included it verbatim in Juce. It'd make up perhaps 0.1% of the total code. So even if I sold as many as 100 commercial licenses over the next few years (in my dreams!), then the amount of money I'd earn from their contribution would barely be enough to buy a round of beers. Which I'd happily do for them, of course. Jules Paul Davis wrote:

Alfons Adriaensen wrote: ok, apology accepted. if you own the copyright to something, you can release it under as many licenses as you like.. I suppose that's true, but it'd be a bit rude! And if you re-write something so completely, there'd not be much point in taking their stuff in the first place!

On Wednesday 27 April 2005 15:44, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: Thats the difference between the copyright (as in copy) and the ownership. This is clearly parted in the german law at least and called Urheberrecht vs. Verwertungsrechte. Since you are the one who wrote the code, you are the one who can sell it / license it to whoever you want, GPL and not-GPL. The one who gets licensed code from you must obey to the license you sold it under. If you decide to sell/give your code to someone for business use you are still allowed to "sell" your own code under the GPL for public use. But, I am not a laywer, I just have a dad who works in arts and has to deal with ownership vs. licensing/copyrights. Arnold -- There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Chris Cannam wrote: No, you can't. One could think about releasing substantial additions created by the Open Source Community under the LGPL. Julian would then be able to sell his code using a commercial license and could still use the additions and Open Source developers would not have to reassign copyrights. An alternative might be to release that additional code using dual licensing: GPL and LGPL. The main practical problem would be the mixture of GPL and LGPL code. Both of us obviously had the same idea. Cheers, Andreas

On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 11:33 +0100, Julian Storer wrote: So what you you need is pointers to snippets to demos that shows "how to do it". Something like jack_simple_client.c and seqdemo.c, right? If you describe what the expected behaviour is for a call, what it will do on the other platforms, then I am sure we will be able to help you navigate around. I suggest you ask one question for each class? That way we can monitor if there are any takers for each specific subject. -- ( ) c[] // Jens M Andreasen

Jules, First of all, welcome. Its really nice to have you around. As you might already noticed, dual-licensing always raise eyebrows among the F/OSS community whenever its brought onto the table. I'll not discuss that, as I've already made my point and will. Others may find it a waste. I don't. Period. Please do. I've already took a peek on the Audio code and found it feasible to proceed for a jack client interface implementation. As both JUCE and JACK are callback based, my first idea goes for a ringbuffer solution. We'll see. Correct. That's what I will do, everybody rest assured. I'm also busy with other projects, so things just will take its paces and time. ;) Cheers. -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc(a)rncbc.org

Jens M Andreasen schrieb: Yes, please don't go offlist with this more technical aspects. I am very interested in following the process, since I'm thinking about inserting jack into another project and it may be very valuable to study this process from ground up. Uwe -- voiceINTERconnect www.voiceinterconnect.de ... smart speech applications from germany

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:09:35PM +0000, ix(a)replic.net wrote: Juce is under dual licensing, so if a developer wants his code accepted into Juce, he'll also have to dual license it. In that case, maybe they'll pay the developer instead (or give him Tracktion for free). On the other hand, could a GPL-only Linux implementation be bait for a GPL'ed Tracktion? cheers, Christian