Good point(s). I can only assume that they were assuming that Mac users don't know what LADSPA is and that the Mac users wouldn't pay much attention to the new LADSPA folder that appears on the system. To many assumptions there. I have mixed emotions about this. Whatever the case may be, I'm glad that I could make you guys aware of what is happening. And if it leads to a lost friendship with the guy I know at Beat Kangz, then oh-well. I don't support theft of any kind. If they really wanted to use LADSPA in a legit manner. Couldn't they create a separate installer package that includes all of the plugins' original code, makefiles, licenses and what not and have it just install a LADSPA plugin set for their program and others to use? I guess in a way, separate the LADSPA stuff from their app and then just utilize the plugins like a normal application would. Ardour packages LADSPA plugins with the Mac OSX with no problems. But then again some of the Ardour developers are the LADSPA developers. Who knows, maybe that is where they got the idea from. I think one of the Beat Kangz guys is a professor(if you want to call it that) at SAE in Nashville (don't quote me on that). Perhaps that would be to much work for them. One thing is for sure, they are using open source gpl software. I can't remember what, but the stdout I got from terminal reported that the Beat Thang was linking to something I had installed via macports. I think it was freetype or something like that. Whatever it is, it is included with MacOSX itself, because it wasn't included with their installer. I have my system check the macports LIB path before the OSX LIB path. But, say you are using the Beat Thang on Windows, then they would probably have to include whatever open source package they are using since windows doesn't include anything like that with it. I kind of want to install this thing on Windows and see what pops up. Its a crying shame that I don't use windows. Snaps! -Mike alex stone wrote:

Quoting "alex stone" <compose59(a)gmail.com>om>: You are making the wrongful assumption that the LAD list speaks with one voice. The impro-visor thread proved that beyond any doubt. There was anger, but also a lot of sympathy towards the said professor. I got a very curtious email from the president of Beat Kangz last night. They are offering to put up credits and are hinting towards giving donations to ladspa developers. This is probably because they want to smooch over this nasty "detail" and they probably feel this could be a mutually beneficial relationship. They are also offering a free copy of their software. I feel a bit ambivalent about the violation. The ladspa interface should protect a host from the virality of a GPL'd plugin. This means that the host code can be as proprietary as the copyright holder wants. Fact is though that they do distribute GPL'd plugins. I am sympathetic to this decision as most normal users want things to work out of the box without a horde of installers. I'm also a bit flattered that they chose my limiter for their software. But they should give me credit for it. The fact that they didn't do this before they were alerted to it, speaks for how businesses often work. To sum up how I see it, the violation is only skin deep: They are not giving plugin authors credit and they should also note that their application comes bundled with GPL'd software. So, at least at the moment I'm leaning towards accepting the offered solution to the violation. Any thoughts? Sampo

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 09:53:21 Sampo Savolainen wrote: Ask them to become a sponsor of the next LAC! Have fun, Arnold

LAC sponsor... super smart suggestion ron On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Steve Harris <steve(a)plugin.org.uk> wrote: