20 Sep
2013
20 Sep
'13
11 a.m.
On jeu. 19/09/13 17:50 , IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig(a)iem.at> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-09-19 05:31, hermann meyer wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. :-( Please don't let you lead from the things
you didn't like, let you lead from the things you like instead. I
guess then it's necessary to let you know that we use /as well/ a
fork of your work, the zita-convolver library, in the guitarix
project. But we leave your copyright untouched, and the fork will
only come in use, when the user set a explicit compile flag. We
didn't promote it, or force the fork. Ordinary your original code
is in use. We do it to use ffmpeg instead fftw3 FFT, which perform
better on ARM devices.
but this sounds like the perfect opportunity to not do a simple fork,
but to send patches to upstream so fons' aeolus could support both
fftw3 and ffmpeg FFTs.
it might be a win-win situation, where not only more than just the
original aeolus users can profit from fons' work (because you use his
code) but also more than just your users can profit from your work
(because you changes are included into upstream aeolus).
I fully agree. As the main fvwm-crystal developer, I know how hard it can
be to get good users returns. I find it scary if even developers cannot
share with each others.
I begun to write my own fvwm-crystal functions because I wanted them,
and when I was done, I contacted upstream. At first, I get no answer, so
I done a fork. Some months later, it was a discussion about my fork
on fvwm-crystal email list, and that time I get in touch with upstream,
and my work was incorporated into Crystal. Form there, I am now the
main contributor. It is not always easy, but so is life.
As the main fvwm-crystal developer, I just don't have the time to check
what can be the special requirements of each distribution or each user
that use it. And I find it very sad when they make modifications and
don't contribute them. From users, I can understand that very well, but
from developers, I think they just miss a very important point about FOS :
a community is always about solidarity.
That imply we must communicate more with each other. I think this is
a big problem, and not only related to Fons work, or the LAD, but to the
whole community. And it is not easy to solve if developers that make
patches just say nothing to the original developers. We are living
in an individualistic society, so are commercial softwares, but with
FOS, peoples must really take on them to communicate more about
what they are doing, that especially when they are making interesting
patches or forks.
Dominique
fmasdr
IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ [1]
iEYEARECAAYFAlI7D0UACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvTc+gCdGdTegTkJmgsRvZ5xz39AyxCe
VEIAnRFYLyRpmcUOUsPZ8jsZ5ceuo21g
=v6Hr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev [2]
Links:
------
[1] http://awebmail.vtx.ch/parse.php?redirect=http://www.enigmail.net/
[2]
http://awebmail.vtx.ch/parse.php?redirect=http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listi
nfo/linux-audio-dev
20 Sep
20 Sep
12:14 p.m.
New subject: Aeolus
On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 11:00 +0200, michel dominique wrote:
That imply we must communicate more with each other.
But we all know that some people can't communicate with each other, not
only when it comes to forks, even when reporting bugs. That's bad, but
natural.
Btw. within the Linux audio community I only experience one issue. The
coder of the HDSPe AIO driver did misbehave and isn't interested in a
bug report. Outside this community there are many examples when
communication is unwanted. I experienced more than one time that it's a
problem and there are much more where I'm not involved, but a usual
reply is "if ..., then fork it". IOW usually people get encouraged to
fork FLOSS. That sometimes somebody makes a mistake, e.g. regarding to a
copyright entry is common, but not an issue, since usually just a
friendly mail is enough, to make those people to correct their offence
and to apologize for it, with an clarification why it unintended
happened.
So if somebody missed to talk to the original coder/coders, than is it
useful to complain about "If this is typical for the attitude taken by
the Linux Audio community" at two mailing lists or would it be sane to
contact the "offender/s" first?
Perhaps my request will get them in contact.
https://github.com/mgavioli/oscAeolus/issues/1
Nobody of us does know the reason for the "offence",
"misunderstanding"
or what ever it is.
Speculations and/or what would be the best way to do a fork or not won't
solve the issue Fons has got. The people involved in this issue first
need to talk to each other.
Regards,
Ralf
1:30 p.m.
New subject: Aeolus
On 20 Sep 2013, at 11:14, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
Nobody of us does know the reason for the
"offence", "misunderstanding"
or what ever it is.
Once you work out that M Gavioli is a musescore contributor (under the name
"miwarre") you can read the musescore forums and see whats been going on.
It looks to me like:
1. musecore forked Aeolus to get just the bits they needed working in their system and
then
2. M Gavioli is now forking the musecore fork to get something more standalone and
OSC-ified.
3. There's also an organist over there who's creating some new presets or
something like that.
Some things worth noting:
M Gavioli is communicative and collaborative, but he's doing that *over there* not
*over here*.
They have discussed contacting Fons but apparently have not yet done so.
They are aware that Fons is (they think) hostile to a version that compiles for Windows,
but believe the GPL trumps that.
For various reasons they suspect (wrongly, as we know) that upstream Aeolus is no longer
under active development.
People are going to draw their own conclusions from this so I'll spare you my 2 cents
(at least for now).
Cheers
Simon Jenkins
Bristol, UK
3:08 p.m.
New subject: Aeolus
Am 20.09.2013 11:00, schrieb michel dominique:
On jeu. 19/09/13 17:50 , IOhannes m
zmoelnig<zmoelnig(a)iem.at> wrote:
Oh, we have announced this on the list(s) here some time
ago:
Am 18.07.2013 23:29, schrieb Andreas Degert:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2013-09-19 05:31, hermann meyer wrote:
>> > >>
> > >I'm sad to hear that.:-( Please don't let you lead from the things
> > >you didn't like, let you lead from the things you like instead. I
> > >guess then it's necessary to let you know that we use/as well/ a
> > >fork of your work, the zita-convolver library, in the guitarix
> > >project. But we leave your copyright untouched, and the fork will
> > >only come in use, when the user set a explicit compile flag. We
> > >didn't promote it, or force the fork. Ordinary your original code
> > >is in use. We do it to use ffmpeg instead fftw3 FFT, which perform
> > >better on ARM devices.
>
>but this sounds like the perfect opportunity to not do a simple fork,
>but to send patches to upstream so fons' aeolus could support both
>fftw3 and ffmpeg FFTs.
>it might be a win-win situation, where not only more than just the
>original aeolus users can profit from fons' work (because you use his
>code) but also more than just your users can profit from your work
>(because you changes are included into upstream aeolus).
I fully agree. As the
main fvwm-crystal developer, I know how hard it can
be to get good users returns. I find it scary if even developers cannot
share with each others. The Guitarix developers proudly present
Guitarix release 0.28.0 "magic chainsaw trick" *)
[ . . .]
List of changes:
[ . . ]
* Optimizations for embedded systems / ARM processors with NEON
* --faust-vectorize-float, --convolver-ffmpeg
[ . . . ]
without a single (list) reply, which imply us a low interest in this
here.
3:15 p.m.
New subject: Aeolus
Am 20.09.2013 15:07, schrieb hermann meyer:
Am 20.09.2013 11:00, schrieb michel dominique:
And more over we didn't announce any release here anymore. Because if
communication becomes a one way route, it becomes meaningless.
On jeu. 19/09/13 17:50 , IOhannes m
zmoelnig<zmoelnig(a)iem.at> wrote:
Oh, we have announced this on the list(s) here some time
ago:
Am 18.07.2013 23:29, schrieb Andreas Degert:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2013-09-19 05:31, hermann meyer wrote:
>> > >>
> > >I'm sad to hear that.:-( Please don't let you lead from the things
> > >you didn't like, let you lead from the things you like instead. I
> > >guess then it's necessary to let you know that we use/as well/ a
> > >fork of your work, the zita-convolver library, in the guitarix
> > >project. But we leave your copyright untouched, and the fork will
> > >only come in use, when the user set a explicit compile flag. We
> > >didn't promote it, or force the fork. Ordinary your original code
> > >is in use. We do it to use ffmpeg instead fftw3 FFT, which perform
> > >better on ARM devices.
>
>but this sounds like the perfect opportunity to not do a simple fork,
>but to send patches to upstream so fons' aeolus could support both
>fftw3 and ffmpeg FFTs.
>it might be a win-win situation, where not only more than just the
>original aeolus users can profit from fons' work (because you use his
>code) but also more than just your users can profit from your work
>(because you changes are included into upstream aeolus).
I fully agree. As the
main fvwm-crystal developer, I know how hard it can
be to get good users returns. I find it scary if even developers cannot
share with each others. The Guitarix developers proudly present
Guitarix release 0.28.0 "magic chainsaw trick" *)
[ . . .]
List of changes:
[ . . ]
* Optimizations for embedded systems / ARM processors with NEON
* --faust-vectorize-float, --convolver-ffmpeg
[ . . . ]
without a single (list) reply, which imply us a low interest in this
here.
3864
days inactive
3864
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
hermann meyer -
michel dominique -
Ralf Mardorf -
Simon Jenkins