31 Dec
2009
31 Dec
'09
4:12 p.m.
I just got the the January 2010 issue of Electronic Musician in the
mail today, and Harrison Mixbus (based on Ardour) was named the
"Download of the month."
Don't forget us linux guys. ;-)
Ricardus...
--
Richard V. Wielgosz
Audio Engineer, Writer
www.richwielgosz.com
3 Jan
3 Jan
8:27 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 15:12 -0500, Ricardus Vincente wrote:
I just got the the January 2010 issue of Electronic
Musician in the
mail today, and Harrison Mixbus (based on Ardour) was named the
"Download of the month."
This "product", Mixbus, does indeed seem to be a modified version of
Ardour. However, I can't seem to find any source code or, for that
matter any downloads at all on the Harrison website.
I'm concerned that they are violating the GPL. This might not be the
case if the Ardour developers have given a separate license to Harrison.
Is this the case?
Alternatively, they may be providing source code to their customers but
not to the general public. Does anybody know if their customers have
access to the source code?
--
Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
8:32 a.m.
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 12:27 +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
This "product", Mixbus, does indeed seem to
be a modified version of
Ardour. However, I can't seem to find any source code or, for that
matter any downloads at all on the Harrison website.
http://ardour.org/node/3011
--
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
8:49 a.m.
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 13:32 +0100, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 12:27 +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
It's good to see that the source code is publicly available but I'm
still concerned that Harrison customers might not be told that they have
access to it. I could find no mention whatsoever of source code on
their website. According to the GPL 2, they must necessarily provide
along with their binaries, either the source code itself or a written
offer to provide the source code. Is this happening?
Again, the concern here is that there may be Harrison customers who are
not being made aware that they have access to the source code for the
software they're buying.
--
Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
This "product", Mixbus, does indeed
seem to be a modified version of
Ardour. However, I can't seem to find any source code or, for that
matter any downloads at all on the Harrison website.
http://ardour.org/node/3011
10:45 a.m.
Bob Ham wrote:
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 13:32 +0100, Thorsten Wilms
wrote:
not completely. the ardour and channel strip UI part is, but the actual
dsp guts are in a closed-source ladspa plugin written by harrison.
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 12:27 +0000, Bob Ham
wrote:
It's good to see that the source code is publicly available This "product", Mixbus, does indeed
seem to be a modified version of
Ardour. However, I can't seem to find any source code or, for that
matter any downloads at all on the Harrison website.
http://ardour.org/node/3011
but I'm
still concerned that Harrison customers might not be told that they have
access to it. I could find no mention whatsoever of source code on
their website. According to the GPL 2, they must necessarily provide
along with their binaries, either the source code itself or a written
offer to provide the source code. Is this happening?
interesting question. i'm sure ben loftis can clarify. in any case,
there is certainly no ill will involved here.
i can see how harrison, given their prospective customer base, would not
want to talk about anything as scary source code on their product page... ;)
for them, the most elegant way would probably be a link in some README
in the download package.
happy new year, everyone!
jörn
10:55 a.m.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh> wrote:
It's good to see that the source code is publicly
available but I'm
still concerned that Harrison customers might not be told that they have
access to it. I could find no mention whatsoever of source code on
their website. According to the GPL 2, they must necessarily provide
along with their binaries, either the source code itself or a written
offer to provide the source code. Is this happening?
Again, the concern here is that there may be Harrison customers who are
not being made aware that they have access to the source code for the
software they're buying.
The software does not differ from Ardour in any way that is related to
"GPL compliance". It prints the same messages, and is covered by same
license. Nobody who downloads Ardour from http://ardour.org/download
will see any extra indication of their rights under the GPL over those
seen by a Mixbus customer, and neither will anyone who obtains Ardour
from their Linux distribution. If you're going to get upset by Mixbus,
then lets please start first with what happens when someone downloads
Ardour from a Ubuntu repository.
I own the copyright to Ardour. I have already verified
4:27 p.m.
On Sun, 2010-01-03 at 09:55 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Bob Ham
<rah(a)bash.sh> wrote:
That, at least is good to know.
It's good to see that the source code is
publicly available but I'm
still concerned that Harrison customers might not be told that they have
access to it. I could find no mention whatsoever of source code on
their website. According to the GPL 2, they must necessarily provide
along with their binaries, either the source code itself or a written
offer to provide the source code. Is this happening?
Again, the concern here is that there may be Harrison customers who are
not being made aware that they have access to the source code for the
software they're buying.
The software does not differ from Ardour in any way that is related to
"GPL compliance". It prints the same messages, and is covered by same
license. Nobody who downloads Ardour from http://ardour.org/download
will see any extra indication of their rights under the GPL over those
seen by a Mixbus customer, and neither will anyone who obtains Ardour
from their Linux distribution. If you're going to get upset by Mixbus,
then lets please start first with what happens when someone downloads
Ardour from a Ubuntu repository.
Well, to compare Mixbus and Ubuntu, I would look at these pages:
1. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate/developerzone
which explains to users that they are welcome to participate in
development and provides pointers to specific information;
2. https://launchpad.net/ardour
which contains links to the Ardour home page and Ubuntu source code
packages; and
3. http://za.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/a/ardour/
which offers both binaries and source code (this is equivalent to
distributing the source code along with the binaries in the GPL 2.)
I would say that Canonical are doing their best to *encourage* customers
to contribute to Ardour and complying with the GPL. On the other hand,
the complete absence of information on contributing to Ardour or
accessing the source code for the Free parts of Mixbus seems quite like
a GPL violation.
Bear in mind that the GPL 2 was written in the days when software
distribution was often by means such as sending magnetic tapes in the
mail. The inclusion of a slip of paper saying that source code was also
available was a significant thing. Note that this slip of paper would
have to have been included regardless of any messages that the software
itself displayed.
Now bring things forward to the days of 'Web 2.0' and paid-for downloads
and you can see that Canonical seem to be making an effort to comply
with the GPL. Harrison, on the other hand seem to be making no such
effort.
As for people downloading from ardour.org, that site *hosts* the source
code!
--
Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
6:35 p.m.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh> wrote:
Well, to compare Mixbus and Ubuntu, I would look at
these pages:
1. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate/developerzone
which explains to users that they are welcome to participate in
development and provides pointers to specific information;
2. https://launchpad.net/ardour
which contains links to the Ardour home page and Ubuntu source code
packages; and
3. http://za.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/a/ardour/
which offers both binaries and source code (this is equivalent to
distributing the source code along with the binaries in the GPL 2.)
None of these links will be presented to a user who installs Ardour
using aptitude, apt-get or any GUI front end for these tools. None of
them will be presented to a user who runs Ardour on their Ubuntu
system either. Neither will the GPL license of Ardour be presented to
the user (that will vanish into their X log file). In short, the user
will have no clue about the license status unless they have enough
knowledge of Ubuntu to know that most of its apps are GPL and how to
check that.
4 Jan
4 Jan
11:22 a.m.
On Sunday 03 January 2010 17:35:04 Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Bob Ham
<rah(a)bash.sh> wrote:
Do you want to consider mentioning the license in the initial Session Control
screen?
And a bit more info on the License screen from the About screen?
I don't think that would be in any way out of line and would make the info a
bit more visible.
all the best,
drew
Well, to compare Mixbus and Ubuntu, I would look
at these pages:
1. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/participate/developerzone
which explains to users that they are welcome to participate in
development and provides pointers to specific information;
2. https://launchpad.net/ardour
which contains links to the Ardour home page and Ubuntu source code
packages; and
3. http://za.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/a/ardour/
which offers both binaries and source code (this is equivalent to
distributing the source code along with the binaries in the GPL 2.)
None of these links will be presented to a user who installs Ardour
using aptitude, apt-get or any GUI front end for these tools. None of
them will be presented to a user who runs Ardour on their Ubuntu
system either. Neither will the GPL license of Ardour be presented to
the user (that will vanish into their X log file). In short, the user
will have no clue about the license status unless they have enough
knowledge of Ubuntu to know that most of its apps are GPL and how to
check that. 
3 Jan
3 Jan
8:32 a.m.
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:27:50PM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-31 at 15:12 -0500, Ricardus Vincente
wrote:
Yes: if i recall correctly it is basically a modified version of Ardour,
developed in close cooperation with Paul Davis, bundled with harrison's
closed DSP plugins.
I just got the the January 2010 issue of
Electronic Musician in the
mail today, and Harrison Mixbus (based on Ardour) was named the
"Download of the month."
This "product", Mixbus, does indeed seem to be a modified version of
Ardour. However, I can't seem to find any source code or,
for that
matter any downloads at all on the Harrison website.
I'm concerned that they are violating the GPL. This might not be the
case if the Ardour developers have given a separate license to Harrison.
Is this the case?
I'm not sure if there's a separate license, but the code is in Ardour's CVS
at http://viewcvs.ardour.org/index.cgi/ardour2/ardour2/branches/harrison/
Regards,
Arnout
5387
days inactive
5391
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Arnout Engelen -
Bob Ham -
drew Roberts -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Paul Davis -
Ricardus Vincente -
Thorsten Wilms