Well Dave P, what should I say ? I think the attitude of certain LAD-ers is one of the reasons why linux audio will remain an irrelevant niche for a long time to come. How can you you create a standard like LV2 and then make statements like "reaper is the enemy" ? I think LV2 devs did not do their math correctly, since it seems that every non GPLed app is labeled as the enemy, they should change the LV2 license to GPL and it will avoid pollution by proprietary apps. So LV2 devs, what was the true reason to release LV2 under LGPL ? (which allows the API being used by proprietary apps too) Pieter summed it up well, LV2 devs should speak out whether they want to create a true standard or an open-source application standard only. But given their attitude regardless of LGPL or GPL I don't see a great future for LV2, it will probably be used by a few open source niche apps and it was about it. after all VST 2.4 is quite limited (only 1 MIDI input port, only MIDI and audio data types) yet it is the industry standard and probably for a long time to come. So creating a new, open standard for both open source and commercial apps only takes a few interested parties (let's say a bunch of smaller proprietary and open source application developers and spec it out. The success of an API is influenced more by its adoption by various players rather than technical excellence. We have many examples in the industry. For example having an open standard and a sequencer like Reaper which uses it could be a big driver to speed up its adoption. But it seems that people here simply don't care, what counts is one's religious belief. Different religions are not accepted. I will not insist trying to change anyone's mind, it makes no sense. If the need arises, other groups will be formed and they will put into practice their ideas. We of LinuxSampler do not have problems with various plugin standards as LS provides a flexible audio,midi driver API so adding so supporting a new plugin standard is only a matter of writing a small wrapper. We recently ported LinuxSampler to Windows (for now only standalone ASIO and MME MIDI) and it had very positive effects for the project, we tripled our userbase overnight, discovered and fixed bugs, made the code more portable and gained lots of new enthusiastic users which did not even know that LS existed. They now want to try out Linux and run LS on the opensource platform as the OS works better. So far about the theory "porting an open source application from Linux to Windows will prevent users to switch to Linux as they are lazy". We are adding VST support to LS and it will benefit LS even more as you can use it for professional productions fully integrated within your favourite VST sequencer. If we were such close minded like certain LADers here LS would not enjoy this kind of success. Politeness, openess and dialogue is the key. Do you really think that Dave P, I and others would not be happy to see open source audio taking over the world ? Unfortunately theory and practice are two different things and to achieve one's goal one has to make lots of friends and go through a transition stage (like porting LS to Windows), even if they are in some ways your implicit enemy. It's called diplomacy over war. As I only tried to build a bridge between parties and start a dialogue which could be beneficial for both but after reading the answers here I see it makes no sense to continue discussing. cheers, Benno 2008/1/22, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>om>:

Am Dienstag, 22. Januar 2008 17:10:42 schrieb Thorsten Wilms: Wooooo, its gettin hot in here. :) Seems to be an emotional feedback in this thread. Calm down guys, Benno is just a bit frustrated about the apparently low interest of LV2 becoming a broad standard. The misplaced attributes here and there are just caused by this frustration, and hey, it's quite pointless to argue about this issue, because it's not our business anyway. :) I'm sure the Reaper guys will seek a dicussion theirselfes in case they're really interested in the LV2 issue. If that happens though, I must admit I hope some people are reconsidering their attitude (if even just for a while) in aspect of what I already hinted. It could really, really pay off for the community on the mid / long term. *Shutting up now* :) CU Christian

Steve Harris wrote: I think we indeed need lots of testing tools - like debugging hosts/plugins spiked with lots of pre/postcondition checks, or even some validity checking libraries that could be easily inserted (#ifdef'ed) into "real" hosts/plugins, to check plugin/host behaviour in "real world". I recall what incomplete/buggy standard implementations did in Buzz and VST worlds, and it'd be nice to have some tools to prevent repeating the same nightmare. As for "who will write it", I guess it can't be a single-person project, because just one person is unlikely to come up with *all* the useful checks (and it would be incredibly boring anyway). Krzysztof

Steve Harris wrote: An interesting experiment might be to write a VST and/or AU wrapper around LV2. The interesting things about this would be: * LV2 support in apps like reaper is (at least partially) present * a lot of open source LV2 plugins get a larger userbase (which might contribute to the plugin's quality, and maybe also to the adoption of LV2). * It could also serve as an example for people that are used to writing VST or AU plugins on how to write LV2 plugins. Some sort of 'documentation by equivalence' or so. * It might reveal some design issues with LV2 (if there are any :)) The downside would be that there is less motivation to implement both LV2 and VST since such a wrapper gives you LV2 through VST. But then again, LV2 can do so much more than VST, no? Just a thought... Pieter PS: I haven't looked at LV2 nor VST (yet), so technically I should probably not participate. But nevertheless I do :).

On Jan 23, 2008 11:20 AM, Steve Harris <steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote: I had intended to make a fork of that a few months adding also some jackmidi testing/torture features. jacknuke is the name. I still plan on implementing more stuff to make it some sort of more robust/featured test application. At the time I felt that Jack demolition was a good initiative that needed to be pushed further. https://gna.org/projects/jacknuke It was my first jack clients, my first svn commits... I'd really love to revive it. And I already know it can find bugs -> I managed to crash a few lv2 synths with it :-p This would also be an interesting project. If only humans didn't need to get some sleep once in a while... __________________ Marc-Olivier Barre, MarcO'Chapeau.

On 23 Jan 2008, at 21:12, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote: Ah, you're confusing JACK Demolition, with Demolition. Demolition is a LADSPA host for testing plugins, JACK Demolition is a JACK client for testing other JACK clients. Nick wrote Demolition, and I wrote JACK Demolition, inspired by it. - Steve

On 24 Jan 2008, at 21:16, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote: I sympathise :) One note, for anyone thinking of doing this - make sure it works usefuly with valgrind, gdb et al, it's one thing to find that some plugin explodes sometimes, it's quite another to show where, how and why. That means avoiding excessive threads and subprocesses among other things. - Steve

On 23 Jan 2008, at 14:35, Dave Robillard wrote: That's a good idea, obviously - but it can be hard to express those kinds of restrictions in a machine readable form, even in RDF :) Also, it will tend to complicate the schema, which is currently quite simple. Perhaps it would make a good adjunct file? tv2-restrictions.ttl or something? - Steve

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 09:59 +0000, Steve Harris wrote: Definitely agreed. 10 minutes hacking is worth 10 hours arguing on web forums. There's no better PR than "look at what we can do". Good technology sells itself :) -DR- (who is currently implementing things in LV2 far beyond what VST or AU could hope to ever do)

"Benno Senoner" <benno.senoner(a)googlemail.com> writes: I'm confused, because this is not true. Your software, LinuxSampler, is not free software. You've also refused to participate in all the threads we've got on this list about your license, which is the source of so much frustration. As far as I can see, we don't share any goals?. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact sip:b0ef@ e e jid:b0ef@ n n

Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 schrieb Fons Adriaensen: Yes, there is a very valid reason for you not to do so: Adding something to the gpl _and_ still calling it the gpl is not valid. So in fact LS has _no_ valid license. The only thing protecting it is the natural(?) copyrights of the ones who invented it. No one else is allowed to copy or distribute (or maybe even use) it without there explicit statement. You can give that statement by publishing it under a certain license but the gpl itself states that making additions to it and still call it gpl is invalidating it... So please(!) LS-devs, give LS a valid license, be it open source or not, free as in defined-by-the-fsf or not. Arnold -- visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ --- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your administrator to do so...

Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 schrieb Paul Davis: Okay, I stand corrected (once again on the copyrights-field). (Applies also to the mail from Christian.) So the license is valid but the wording is unclear because distributions don't know wether they are allowed to ship it and users don't know wether they are allowed to sell the music they do with LS? Arnold -- visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ --- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your administrator to do so...

Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 14:57:17 schrieb Arnold Krille: Not exactly, distributions are automatically allowed to ship it as long as they don't make money with it. Only if the latter case applies, they would currently need to contact us to get the permission to do so, which many distributions already did. And about commercial music: that's a completely different thing. The commercial exception only applies to LS as being part of a commercial hardware or software product. If you're making commercial music with it however, LS won't be a part of your work (=music), I doubt you would ship LS on your album, would you? http://linuxsampler.org/faq.html#commercial_music CU Christian

"alex stone" <compose59(a)gmail.com> writes: But that's really the funny thing here. Your software isn't from the free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither the free software definition nor the open source definition. I'm glad that GPLv3 fixes this issue, cause if you state that the software is under GPLv3 you may not impose any further restrictions on the work, if I read the license correctly. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact sip:b0ef@ e e jid:b0ef@ n n

Paul Davis wrote: Well, what's more, at least one well known project from Free Software Foundation uses exactly that: GPL plus "special exception" changing the conditions slightly (allowing for use in other software without making them covered by GPL). I think it may be a good reason to think that such practices are allowed/approved by FSF. Krzysztof

Arnold Krille wrote: No, it's different than LGPL. It's GPL with special exception. I'm actually surprised you don't know which project I'm talking about. Krzysztof

On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 21:15 +0100, Esben Stien wrote: I don't quite see what would stop a company from bundling LS with commercial content, stating that LS is included as a freebie. The really funny thing would be the authors going MIA and nobody being there to give that permission that at least commercial distros might think is required. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/

On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 20:42 +0000, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: It's simple: That is why LS is neither Open Source or Free Software * Claiming otherwise is intentionally misleading deception. Complaining about it (again...) is just a stupid waste of time. We know all of this already. Move on, list, move on. ;) -DR- (* Some reasonable people care, some reasonable people don't, BFD)

Christian Schoenebeck <cuse(a)users.sourceforge.net> writes: This is why I don't like the word open source. You can claim that it's open source just because people can look at the code, which is really absurd, in my opinion;). When people talk about free software and open source, it goes really without saying that they talk about free software as defined by the FSF and open source as defined by the open source initiative, but obviously not in your case. You just say: - "Here, look at it" ..and then say, well, you looked at it, ergo, it's open source. The term didn't even exist before the OSI definition. In my opinion, you are misleading people, straight up. -- Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a http://www. s t n m irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact sip:b0ef@ e e jid:b0ef@ n n

Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Christian (and other LS dev's), It's your work, and you do whatever you want with it. No need to defend yourself (yet another time) IMHO. Personally I have similar reservations regarding the code I write for FFADO. If one or the other hardware vendor decides to use it as (part of) the software platform for (part of) it's hardware I wouldn't like it. There are numerous scenario's in which a hardware system can use open source components without being completely open-source, and still be in line with the GPL. And if the open-source code makes up a significant part of the base functionality of the product, I feel that the authors deserve something in return. When writing things that are 'middleware', these issues are more pronounced IMHO. I consider the LS engine to be such a 'middleware' application, since all it takes for a vendor to build a product out of it is a compiler for their target platform. If they were to use a closed operating system, people wouldn't even be able to exercise their GPL rights, even if the 'open' source code was shipped along. We could have an endless discussion on this, so please let's not do so. In a 100% honest world this would be a non-issue, but I'm not that naive. Keep up the good work, I think you're doing really cool stuff. Greets, Pieter

Am Samstag, 26. Januar 2008 01:06:04 schrieb Dave Robillard: [snip] So what? You want to continue to discuss it or to end it? Make your decision. And no, the OSI definition is mentioned in the 2nd sentenced. The 1st sentence sais "Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software, most importantly, the source code is openly available.". And on top of it, there's even a link: "For other uses, see Open source (disambiguation).": "Open source denotes that a product includes permission to use its source code, design documents, or content (...)." So get it: there is NOT only one definition of the term "open source" when standing alone. Like with many unspecific short terms, different people have different opinions of those short terms. So don't talk like your opinion would be "fact". And think about it, if we would "intentionally mislead" people, like you're accusing us, we would definitely not place a link on our site to the various definitions of "open source" including your praised OSI definition. But I agree with you in one thing: it's really nonsense to discuss this issue any further. CU Christian

Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 06:25:31 schrieben Sie: Right, just by the majority of e.g. all Windows and OS X users, hmm who reflect the majority of all users anyway. And right, I forgot I'm promoting a product. Thanks Dave for enlighten us about the truth! Now I clearly see there is only white and nothing else than white! Well, maybe black, but the black ones are evil by definition and don't count. Thanks my Pope! How could I ever have doubts in your holy inerrable words. CU Christian

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 10:42 +0000, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Very well, Google and virtually the entire Internet is wrong, and you are right. Congratulations. Is FLOSS good enough, or is "Free Libre Open Source Software" also open to interpretation in crazyville? -DR-

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +0000, pete shorthose wrote: virtually nobody even knows who /you/ are, let alone what you think. how's that? -DR-

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +0000, pete shorthose wrote: I suppose it's also presumptuous to say that virtually everybody thinks the sky is blue? Duh. Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? Indeed. -DR-

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +0000, pete shorthose wrote: You started it, don't complain when you get what's coming ;) -DR-

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote: Dio mio. Why does this remind me of Revolutionary Guards rhetoric from the Cultural Revolution era (People's Republic of China, mid 1960s) ? I suggest you force Christian to declare his sins in public, and after that he should be sent to at least 10 years of hard labour on a collective FOSS farm. Ciao, -- FA Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica Parma, Italia Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote: No, it reminds me because of the wording. I guess I've grown to be allergic to any statements of the form "You are not a true Communist/Christian/Moslim/American/..." as if the writer, waving some canonical document or little book, would be able to judge about that. It's part of the typical "us and them" way of thinking, which is usually a source of misery only. Ciao, -- FA Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica Parma, Italia Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.

On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:33 +0100, hollunder(a)gmx.at wrote: I don't think trying to 'sell' LV2 to commercial projects is a good idea right now anyway (and I don't think anyone else who actually knows LV2 does either). Keep in mind LV2 is almost exactly LADSPA equivalent in functionality - plus extensibility. There is still a lot of work to be done before it's a replacement for VST3 or whatever. As far as zealotism, they're the ones whining for an open standard... VST is bad? Why? Because it's closed? Zealots! Open this and open that, we don't need to hear about your religion, comrade stalin, blah blah blah. Oh. So you can be pro-"open" and not be a zealot? Gee, who knew? -DR-

On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:09 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: So we'd be better off with no definition of "open source" or "free software" at all? Obviously not. This has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with "you are not a true...". Accepted and widely understood licensing blanket terms are useful (i.e. actually, truly, useful, in the most pragmatic sense possible). Attacking them and/or misleading people about them does nothing but harm. Especially when it's a weak variation of pulling a Godwin ;) -DR-

Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 13:39:20 schrieb Arnold Krille: Sorry for the ones who heard this thousand times before, but once again: Arnold, a license is just a declaration of intention. As a copyright holder you can define any license terms you want, as long as it doesn't break anyones rights or laws. And we do not break the FSF's rights, nor any law I know of (at least not in our part of the world). In fact we've been in touch with various people from the FSF for several months, but haven't found a better solution so far. I do agree though that the license wording is suboptimal, and we're certainly fixing it on the mid / long term, but as said, we don't have a better solution yet and the current license terms are valid. CU Christian

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 07:49 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote: The vast majority of my original message was deliberately about the technical problems mentioned. I added a little blurb in (sidenote) brackets about my opinion of proprietary software, and look at what you have turned it into. Closed minded? /I'm/ not the one so completely offended by the fact that someone else doesn't share my opinion. -DR-

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:23:25 +0000 "Patrick Shirkey" <pshirkey(a)boosthardware.com> wrote: because apparently, he is wrong. thus, it's a missed opportunity for him to leverage a good plugin api and a missed opportunity for us to get LV2 to a wider audience. lose lose. neither side demonstrated due dilligence and it's not like it matters anyway. it's up to those with an interest in both LV2 and it's implementation in reaper to follow up imo, from a purely pragmatic perspective. pete.