23 Jan
2003
23 Jan
'03
12:36 p.m.
>>
In this context it's seems a little
ridiculous that the MMA is requiring
members of the mailing list to sign on with $450.
<<<
The MMA is a trade association, akin to a standards body like the AES. Do
you also object to the fact that AES, IEEE, etc, charge membership dues, and
that they too hold evolving standards discussions for members only? How
does the fact that this happens to be _software_ standard mandate that dues
be waived?
>>
Applying closed methods of
communication, or at least requiring a sum of
money to be paid to have discussion rights is the equivalent of telling
us Open Source developers that either you don't understand what we are
doing and why or you totally disagree with the paradigm we work in.
<<<
This isn't about being for or against open source, or a lack of
understanding. This is about recognizing that developing and supporting a
standard requires legal work, marketing, publications, etc, and that these
cost money. Call it "old economy" if you must, but if you want to
interoperate with the major companies in the industry, the MMA is forum
where they gather, and the MMA has a cost structure associated with it.
Also, the plan is for this process to not be completely closed. We're
working on a process whose openness is new to the MMA, but similar in nature
to other standards organizations. The current plan is to have 4 phases:
[1] Requirements gathering. This will be open to any developer who wants to
register on an email reflector. This phase will start as early as next
week, and will last several months, I suspect.
[2] Design. This will be open to MMA members only. If you want the legal
protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for
"stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining. Even some open-source
developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after
selling a very small number of units.
[3] Review. This will be public like phase 1. We'll probably have several
iterations of 2 and 3.
[4] Adoption. Once again, private to MMA members only.
IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the commercial companies (many of
whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join the MMA, while a
sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives us
2 standards, and nobody wins.
-Ron
23 Jan
23 Jan
12:54 p.m.
[2] Design. This will be open to MMA members only. If
you want the legal
protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for
"stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining. Even some open-source
developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after
selling a very small number of units.
i want to echo what ron has written here.
even just from a documentation angle: the specs for any unified plugin
API will be no small document. this document needs to be printed
(because some people will want it like that rather than as a PDF
file), it needs to be hosted, it needs errata management,
etc. etc. etc. to date, volunteer efforts have not been particularly
successful even on just the maintainance side of this, and its hard to
see how it would work for the stuff that actually needs money. more
importantly, with something as widely adopted as we would hope this
would be, its critical to have a reference source for the spec. take a
look at the myriad of documents on MIDI, RIFF/WAV and so forth: which
one is *the* spec?
IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the
commercial companies (many of
whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join the MMA, while a
sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives us
2 standards, and nobody wins.
fully echoed. i hope that other LAD members feel similarly.
--p
12:56 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:30:45AM -0500, RonKuper(a)Cakewalk.com wrote:
IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the
commercial companies (many of
whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join the MMA, while a
sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives us
2 standards, and nobody wins.
(cut)
True. I don't think anyone in his right mind wants fragmentation.
I think the problem with VST for platforms like Linux was the
restrictions on the distribution of the header files of the SDK ?
That's definitely something that should be avoided.
I think it was also Dave (or Paul?) who raised the issue that TDM plugins
allow some protection against copying, so they would be unlikely to switch
to an API or a 'paradigm' which has no provisions against 'warezing'.
A little bit off-topic, I wonder if there is any open project looking
into using the TCPA infrastructure that will be available in newer
boards to allow eg. time limited use of plugins or copy protection, even
in a free OS ? I think its also best to not underestimate the economics
which are involved here.
I think everyone should at least have the full
ability to go for the implementation they want, which means no
restrictions on open development, but also no restrictions for
corporations who want to make money off it.
Which leaves me only to say that I appreciate the open view that Ron is
showing in this regard (I hope I may call you Ron) and I welcome his
opinionated mails on this list as a fully qualified lurker ;).
just my 2 Euro cents,
v
12:57 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: <RonKuper(a)Cakewalk.com>
To: <linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 23 January, 2003 17:30
Subject: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts on
control ramping]
and
I totaly disagree here: if Steinberg + MOTU + Cakewalk + Emagic + Plugins
developpers joind hands and decide to use a common standard I see very
little need in marketing and legal work. I think the problems are more
political than anything else and I can understand why steinberg and emagic
(for example) would prefer to hide a standard war behind closed doors
instead of on a public mailling list.
>>
In this context it's seems a little ridiculous that the MMA is requiring
members of the mailing list to sign on with $450.
<<<
The MMA is a trade association, akin to a standards body like the AES. Do
you also object to the fact that AES, IEEE, etc, charge membership dues, that they too hold evolving standards discussions for
members only? How
does the fact that this happens to be _software_ standard mandate that
dues
be waived?
Can you explain to us exactely what the MMA is offering in exchange of this
money? I don't see any cost associated with the need to create an open
plugin system: the only thing need I see is the good will of every one
involved to try and work together for the good of all. Mailling lists cost
nothing to create and just a little bit of administration (sourceforge or
savanah could host it without problems and for free). And I fail to see what
more we need that is so costly.
>>
Applying closed methods of communication, or at least requiring a sum of
money to be paid to have discussion rights is the equivalent of telling
us Open Source developers that either you don't understand what we are
doing and why or you totally disagree with the paradigm we work in.
<<<
This isn't about being for or against open source, or a lack of
understanding. This is about recognizing that developing and supporting a
standard requires legal work, marketing, publications, etc, and that these
cost money. Call it "old economy" if you must, but if you want to
interoperate with the major companies in the industry, the MMA is forum
where they gather, and the MMA has a cost structure associated with it.
[2] Design. This will be open to MMA members only.
If you want the legal
protection that the MMA provides, and you want somebody else to pay for
"stewardship" of the spec, then it's worth joining. Even some open-source
developers sell products, and those who do will recoup their cost after
selling a very small number of units.
What protection does the MMA provides?
[4] Adoption. Once again, private to MMA members
only.
IMO the *worst* possible scenario is that the commercial companies (many
of
whom are a one man show) decide that they want to join
the MMA, while a
sizeable group of others decide to persue a parallel effort. That gives
us
2 standards, and nobody wins.
Better keep things really open then don't you think? That's the best way to
keep things on one track.
-Ron
Sebastien
1:16 p.m.
I totaly disagree here: if Steinberg + MOTU + Cakewalk
+ Emagic + Plugins
developpers joind hands and decide to use a common standard I see very
little need in marketing and legal work.
antitrust. see below.
I think the problems are more
political than anything else and I can understand why steinberg and emagic
(for example) would prefer to hide a standard war behind closed doors
instead of on a public mailling list.
this is absurdly prejudicial. nobody is forcing any company to
participate in this effort. nobody has given *ANY* indication that
they would rather do this behind closed doors for reasons of
"privacy".
and look: steinberg, emagic, cakewalk and the rest are small
companies. they have spent years working on software, marketing,
hardware, management, and all the usual costs of doing
business. they've employed intelligent, hardworking people to do some
really cool stuff, and as a result have paid for houses, food,
heating, cars, vacations, education, art, music etc. there isn't an
open source audio or MIDI application that can claim this or even get
close to it, and its no small thing either.
nobody could duplicate what they've done in terms of software as a
part time hobby. the only reason there is any serious reason to think
that open source is really a viable option here is that there are some
people (myself for one) who have reached the priviledged position
(albeit temporary) of being able to do this full time without
pay. taking a stance against these companies as though they are idiots
or fools or mean spirited does nothing to advance the promotion of
better living through open source. talking as if there is some secret
agenda or dark motives (even if there are, which is not apparently the
case here) helps no-one and only creates mistrust, or worse. what do
you steinberg or emagic people who might read what you wrote will
think of this group when they read what you just wrote? why would they
want to have anything to do with us, let alone allow us to participate
in a design process, when you are attributing psychological
characteristics to them that you have no reason to believe exist?
these companies have shown us all what can be done with computers and
audio/MIDI. they are now starting to talk about trying to deal with a
significant problem for the domain: multiple plugin APIs. lets try to
stay focused on the positives here, and let the negatives go.
What protection does the MMA provides?
antitrust, for one thing. a bunch of domain-specific companies getting
together to work out a new standard - what do you think some lawyers
would think of that?
Better keep things really open then don't you
think? That's the best way to
keep things on one track.
only if there is good reason to believe there will be no "code
forks". i don't see any good reason to believe that here - there would
be many incentives to do so.
for an "open source" example, consider the work that the IETF does
with RFC's and the like.
--p
2:21 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Davis" <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
To: <linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, 23 January, 2003 18:13
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] RE: MMA memebership [was XAP: Some thoughts
on control ramping]
Good point.
Because it just happens in the real world. Just read the OpenGL ARB
proceedings and see for yourself: conflicts of interests just happen every
time! I only took these two companies as an example it could be anybody.
Maybe because that's just the actual situation: 8 competing standards or so.
Make this one under the "protection" of the MMA doesn't mean that would
prevent anybody to think that XAP was finaly a better idea and try to
promote it instead (again, XAP was just an example).
I was just asking for some answers to my questions, answers didn't have to
be inflamatory. Don't forget that many people here isn't a native english
speaker, may be I didn't use the right vocabulary or whatever but I really
didn't meant my mail to be agressive at all, sorry if you thought it was.
Sebastien
I totaly
disagree here: if Steinberg + MOTU + Cakewalk + Emagic + Plugins
developpers joind hands and decide to use a common standard I see very
little need in marketing and legal work.
antitrust. see below.
> I think the problems are more
>political than anything else and I can understand why steinberg and
emagic
(for example)
would prefer to hide a standard war behind closed doors
instead of on a public mailling list.
this is absurdly prejudicial. nobody is forcing any company to
participate in this effort. nobody has given *ANY* indication that
they would rather do this behind closed doors for reasons of
"privacy".
nobody could duplicate what they've done in terms
of software as a
part time hobby. the only reason there is any serious reason to think
that open source is really a viable option here is that there are some
people (myself for one) who have reached the priviledged position
(albeit temporary) of being able to do this full time without
pay. taking a stance against these companies as though they are idiots
or fools or mean spirited does nothing to advance the promotion of
better living through open source. talking as if there is some secret
agenda or dark motives (even if there are, which is not apparently the
case here) helps no-one and only creates mistrust, or worse. what do
you steinberg or emagic people who might read what you wrote will
think of this group when they read what you just wrote? why would they
want to have anything to do with us, let alone allow us to participate
in a design process, when you are attributing psychological
characteristics to them that you have no reason to believe exist?
I never implied any of that. I only repeated what your initial report of the
NAMM gathering said: issues seemed mostly political (steinberg people
thinking that *they* are the standard, Digi not caring to show up, Apple not
showing interest because they have their own solutions, etc..)! And politics
are more than often handled behind closed doors. May be that's even where
the MMA could really be useful: talking the big companies into joining
hands. That's politics. Then should the actual technical work be closed: I
still see no point in doing that.
And just one point: We are talking about Apple/Emagic for exemple here: no
secret agenda? You must be joking! :).
these companies have shown us all what can be done
with computers and
audio/MIDI. they are now starting to talk about trying to deal with a
significant problem for the domain: multiple plugin APIs. lets try to
stay focused on the positives here, and let the negatives go.
Good point.
What protection does the MMA provides?
antitrust, for one thing. a bunch of domain-specific companies getting
together to work out a new standard - what do you think some lawyers
would think of that?
>Better keep things really open then don't you
think? That's the best way
to
keep things on
one track.
only if there is good reason to believe there will be no "code
forks". i don't see any good reason to believe that here - there would
be many incentives to do so.
8004
days inactive
8004
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Paul Davis -
RonKuper＠Cakewalk.com -
Sebastien Metrot -
Vincent Touquet