27 Jan
2011
27 Jan
'11
3:39 p.m.
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject, the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
With the help of our platinum sponsor TSI, we were afforded two full
time developers to help with the task of getting to where we are
today. We would like to thank TSI for their continued longterm support
and encouragement.
OOM2 linear Midi and Audio sequencer.
We announce the beta release of the 2nd version of the OpenOctaveMidi
sequencer, known as OOM2. After a change of codebase, a complete
rebuild of the user interface, and the addition of new features and
functions, we're proud to present this version as our initial beta
release.
OOM2 is a linear Midi and Audio sequencer for the Linux operating
system in both 32 and 64bit.
OOM2 uses the following:
* JACK-audio - http://jackaudio.org
* JACK-midi - for midi support
* DSSI - synth plugins
* VST(i) - synth plugins (through DSSI, for the moment. We're
more interested in native linuxplugins, so the DSSI-VST implementation
may be removed.)
* ALSA-midi - for midi support
* QT4.6.0 or later (earlier versions may work, but are not tested)
You can download OOM2 from our github repository at:
git://github.com/ccherrett/oom.git
Use the command:
git clone git://github.com/ccherrett/oom.git
to install the source in an empty directory of your choosing, and
follow the build instructions in the Readme file.
Please note we're adding new commits each day, and more features are
coming very soon, hence the Beta release notice.
We hope you enjoy using OOM2, and should you have anything you'd like
to report, please send an email to:
development(a)openoctave.org
We can also be found on irc at #openoctave (freenode)
Visit www.openoctave.org to find out more!
Alex.
27 Jan
27 Jan
4:15 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We hope you enjoy using OOM2, and should you have
anything you'd like
to report, please send an email to:
development(a)openoctave.org
We can also be found on irc at #openoctave (freenode)
Visit www.openoctave.org to find out more!
Oh cool, I will give this a spin. I had been using OOM for a while but
it was not very stable and crashed a lot, so I stayed with Rosegarden,
(latest version of RG is pretty good now, been using for the past 12
months for Berklee classes). The new OOM2 interface looks pretty
spiffy, too! Is it a fork of an existing app or did you guys build it
from scratch?
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.electricminstrel.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
4:42 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Brett McCoy <idragosani(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone
<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Brett, OOM2 is based on an existing codebase, but we've put a
blowtorch to much of it already.
You can find out more at the website, and i'm currently trying to
build a quick start manual for users.
Be aware that we're flying at the moment, so if you hit an awkward
spot in git pulls, have another go.
Onwards and Upwards,
Alex.
We hope you enjoy using OOM2, and should you have
anything you'd like
to report, please send an email to:
development(a)openoctave.org
We can also be found on irc at #openoctave (freenode)
Visit www.openoctave.org to find out more!
Oh cool, I will give this a spin. I had been using OOM for a while but
it was not very stable and crashed a lot, so I stayed with Rosegarden,
(latest version of RG is pretty good now, been using for the past 12
months for Berklee classes). The new OOM2 interface looks pretty
spiffy, too! Is it a fork of an existing app or did you guys build it
from scratch?
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.electricminstrel.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
4:59 p.m.
Hi just downloaded and built oom2, all went well. It runs fine. But is
there any way to set the install libdir ? I have a 64 bit system with
32 bit libs in /usr/lib which is where oom2 installs its files. A
fairly minor niggle I know but if there is a quick fix I would be
grateful. I did some greping in the src and OOMidi_LIB_DIR would seem
to be the variable to set but it seems to have no effect.
Thanks & keep up the good work
Mickski :-)
6:33 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM, mickski56 <mickski56(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi just downloaded and built oom2, all went well. It
runs fine. But is
there any way to set the install libdir ? I have a 64 bit system with
32 bit libs in /usr/lib which is where oom2 installs its files. A
fairly minor niggle I know but if there is a quick fix I would be
grateful. I did some greping in the src and OOMidi_LIB_DIR would seem
to be the variable to set but it seems to have no effect.
Thanks & keep up the good work
Mickski :-)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Mick, we'll take a look and see what's happening there. I run OOM2 on
a 64bit system, and it installed the libs to /usr/lib64 first time
around.
Thanks for the heads up. :)
Regards,
Alex.
28 Jan
28 Jan
3:09 p.m.
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:27:38 +0300, alex stone wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM, mickski56
<mickski56(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes I have checked ccmake advanced section, all libs are
under /usr/lib64.
Also
grep \/lib\ /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/*
grep \/lib\ /usr/local/lib64/pkgconfig/*
and just in case
grep \/lib\ /usr/lib64/*.la
grep \/lib\ /usr/local/lib64/*.la
turns up nothing.
Has anyone running slackware64-13 multilib seen this
behaviour ? Please don't spend too much time on this I'm half suspecting
some misconfiguration my end. I will investigate further over the next
few days as time allows. If anyone has any thoughts off the top of
their heads on this please share.
Once again thanks
Mickski
Hi just downloaded and built oom2, all went well.
It runs fine. But is
there any way to set the install libdir ? I have a 64 bit system with
32 bit libs in /usr/lib which is where oom2 installs its files. A
fairly minor niggle I know but if there is a quick fix I would be
grateful. I did some greping in the src and OOMidi_LIB_DIR would seem
to be the variable to set but it seems to have no effect.
Thanks & keep up the good work
Mickski :-)
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing
list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Mick, we'll take a look and see what's happening there. I run OOM2 on a
64bit system, and it installed the libs to /usr/lib64 first time around.
Thanks for the heads up. :)
Regards,
Alex. 
27 Jan
27 Jan
5:08 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject, the
team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
--p
5:14 p.m.
Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex
stone<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You need to settle down there
Paul.
There would be no oom2 if you had of kept up with your coding. You know
well my pipeline used ardour. Till one faithful day that you told me to
put my monitoring while recording request in mantis. You know well that
not naming the project has nothing to do with your anger.
It is no secret that it was muse2. They suggested we fork. We wanted to
stay with them.
Get a grip and have a nice day.
Thanks!
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject,
the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be
a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
--p
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
5:32 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Christopher Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
It is no secret that it was muse2. They suggested we
fork. We wanted to stay
with them.
Neither Muse nor Muse2 are mentioned anywhere on your website. I asked
only that you acknowledge the project that you forked, nothing more.
There was no anger, just a request that when forks are done, they are
acknowledged, out of respect for the work that was put into the
ancestor. This is a common practice (see LibreOffice for a recent
example) and I'm confused why my request would cause remarks like "you
need to settle down there" and "get a grip".
5:37 p.m.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
To: Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
Cc: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 09:32 AM
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Christopher
Cherrett
<ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
OK, it was muse2. So
get ready :)
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
It is no secret that it was muse2. They suggested
we fork. We wanted to stay
with them.
Neither Muse nor Muse2 are mentioned anywhere on your website. I asked
only that you acknowledge the project that you forked, nothing more.
There was no anger, just a request that when forks are done, they are
acknowledged, out of respect for the work that was put into the
ancestor. This is a common practice (see LibreOffice for a recent
example) and I'm confused why my request would cause remarks like "you
need to settle down there" and "get a grip". 
5:57 p.m.
On 27 January 2011 16:37, Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org> wrote:
OK, it was muse2.
Did you ever consider, for example, _not_ assigning yourselves the
copyright in the program's About box?
This is exactly what happened with Rosegarden for "OOM1" -- fork the
project, provide a new theme, new keybindings and some new features,
change all identifying names, remove our copyrights, and put up a
promotional page about it with no reference to Rosegarden. In that
instance the credits reappeared after I objected, and I was prepared
to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps the MusE team are more relaxed about attribution than I am, or
perhaps they decided they'd prefer not to be identified with the
forked software at all. I don't know.
(No, it is not legal to take someone else's GPL software and identify
yourself as the copyright holder.)
Chris
5:47 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone
<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I find this hardly surprising, but sadly predictable. For all the
effort that went into not only OOM1 for USERS, and OOM2 for USERS,
you've implied that somehow we're "scum" because we didn't publicly
acknowledge the codebase, when we'd already been told to fork, and go
our own way. Why is that anything to do with you? We've attributed
correctly, and reached an agreement with the current code team, out of
mutual courtesy. Why do you feel you need to be notified, as if it's a
requirement? You should ask yourself why we picked Werner's great
work, with the formidable wealth of great midi tools under the skin.
I also find it sad that users came to us to get better tools, to do
simple tasks in applications, that they'd failed to get any enthusiasm
for after they'd done the rounds. You'd be surprised how many users
have turned up to get shortcuts (Yes,shortcuts), or navigation
improvements, or other fundamental workflow functions.
I'm not looking for a fight with anyone in the community, on the
contrary, i've put 3 and half solid years into trying to contribute
many years of experience into programs, and with the except of the
notable few devs who have great skills, class and style, and make the
effort to see the user's perspective, we, as a team with a particular
use case, got generally derided and dismissed. Fair enough, devs make
their own decisions, as do we.
But i won't tolerate your implication that we're somehow "not nice
people" because you didn't have a part in any discussion we might have
had.
Enough of this political nonsense, i'm off to do more for our project,
a GPL project, which hopefully will serve the needs of many users for
years to come, with tools user can enjoy for many years to come.
I'm not surprised at your swift attach, and tacky implications. On the
contrary, i'm only surprised it took you so long. No doubt you'll
continue this as long as it's newsworthy, so.....
Enjoy yourself,
Alex.
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject,
the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least. if
you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fork (other than potentially
being a waste of developer resources), but i do think that not even
*naming* the well-known project that OOM2 is based on is close to
morally problematic, and perhaps worse.
--p
5:52 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM, alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Paul Davis
<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
good grief!
i never said you were bad people. i have a lot of respect for you and
chris. i was just puzzled and bit bothered that you would fork Muse
and announce OOM2 without anything that notified people of that
relationship. If you had forked *any* existing project of that size,
for *any* purpose, I would have thought it would be common, normal
practice to do make that link so that people (users, developers,
supporters etc.) could make that link too.
apparently, you feel otherwise. that's fine, just a little odd for
most open source projects, that's all.
5:57 p.m.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
To: alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com>
Cc: LAU Mail List <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>rg>, Linux Audio
Developers <Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Date: 01/27/2011 09:52 AM
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:46 AM, alex
stone<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Possibly you want to choose
your words more carefully.
I have worked my but off for the last month. My head is burning from no
sleep. My team is worn down from no sleep and it all started with Ardour
falling apart in our studios.
As I said there would be no oom2 if not for Ardour coming down around
us. Sad I had to say this publicly, however you picked the location.
You have no place to try to do such damage.
Have a nice day.
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Paul
Davis<paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone<compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
good grief!
i never said you were bad people. i have a lot of respect for you and
chris. i was just puzzled and bit bothered that you would fork Muse
and announce OOM2 without anything that notified people of that
relationship. If you had forked *any* existing project of that size,
for *any* purpose, I would have thought it would be common, normal
practice to do make that link so that people (users, developers,
supporters etc.) could make that link too.
apparently, you feel otherwise. that's fine, just a little odd for
most open source projects, that's all.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev 
5:51 p.m.
On January 27, 2011 11:08:30 am Paul Davis wrote:
...
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least.
It is not troubling at all. And completely in accord with licenses, the only
real thing that matters.
if you had done this with ardour, i'd be raising
bloody hell about it.
And you would have no right to say anything actually as long as the license
was adhered to. Any complaint that has nothing to do with licenses is just
moralizing. I think we can all do without any of that noise, thank you.
Nobody has to thank you for your work. They might, but it is not required.
Since you choose to put it out as FOSS this is exactly what you have agreed
to.
Raymond
5:56 p.m.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On January 27, 2011 11:08:30 am Paul Davis wrote:
if you think that the license is all that matters about free software,
then i suspect we don't see eye to eye on a great many things.
i'm glad you're respecting the license, and i'm glad that there is
work going on with another great tool for audio & MIDI on linux.
i just don't remember other cases where major existing FLOSS projects
were forked and the new fork didn't explicitly acknowledge "this a new
fork of XXXX", presumably because it helps to establish continuity,
confidence and belief in the virtues of the fork. the fact that you
forked Muse and not LMMS, for example, makes OOM2 look much more
interesting than it could have been otherwise.
...
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least.
It is not troubling at all. And completely in accord with licenses, the only
real thing that matters. 
8:57 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis wrote:
i just don't remember other cases where major
existing FLOSS projects
were forked
This is not about what is going in in this thread in any direct way. (Or may
not be at least, I do not know enough to say I guess.)
What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good starting point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to take things will
result in a completely different sort of program to the one I forked? Should
that still be considered a fork or is there another term for such a beast?
Would another term be useful?
all the best,
drew
9:05 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
Stop forking around
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:57 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis
wrote:
--
"Cheshire-Puss," she began, "would you tell me, please,
which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't care much where--" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
i just don't remember other cases where major
existing FLOSS projects
were forked
This is not about what is going in in this thread in any direct way. (Or
may
not be at least, I do not know enough to say I guess.)
What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good starting
point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to take things
will
result in a completely different sort of program to the one I forked?
Should
that still be considered a fork or is there another term for such a beast?
Would another term be useful?
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
29 Jan
29 Jan
4:17 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas wrote:
What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good
starting point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to
take things will
result in a completely different sort of program to the one I
forked?
a) We do not know neither your direction nor intend.
b) Is the program really completely different - according to who?
c) Because of a and b there is no c.
/j
Would another term be useful?
5:15 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On January 29, 2011 10:17:36 am Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas
wrote:
Never mind any of the hand waving going on about forks, giving credit, etc.
Stick to the license, that is all that is required of you.
There is a saying "never explain, your friends don't need it and your enemies
won't believe you anyway".
If you want to fork, just fork. It is your irrevocable right to do so. You do
not owe anyone an explanation, ever. Just stick to the letter of the licenses.
Nothing more is required of you.
Everything else said about this topic is just noise by people who do not
understand the purpose of FOSS. They think they do, but they are completely
wrong if they have anything to say that imputes some kind of emotionality into
it.
Once you give away your code under FOSS it does not belong to you anymore (in
that particular form) and you do so (if you are intelligent) with full
knowledge of what you are doing and all the implications of it. Basically,
take responsibility, read the licenses properly, understand their far reaching
purpose, and relinquish any kind of ownership type attitudes for the greater
good.
I have forked other projects before and tried to cooperate, follow licenses,
only to have those projects act very territorial and not in the proper spirit
of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the other
project know what you are doing, it is not their business since they have
freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the fact is just
childish and stupid.
Raymond
What if I "fork" a project
because I think it gives me a good
starting point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to
take things will
result in a completely different sort of program to the one I
forked?
a) We do not know neither your direction nor intend.
b) Is the program really completely different - according to who?
c) Because of a and b there is no c.
/j
> Would another term be useful? 
6:54 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
I have forked other projects before and tried to
cooperate, follow licenses,
only to have those projects act very territorial and not in the proper
spirit of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the other
project know what you are doing, it is not their business since they have
freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the fact is just
childish and stupid.
What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so
I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :)
This battle has a long history. It's called "what can I get away
with?" :) Trust me: there's little to be proud of there. Talking about
spirit of FOSS and then neglecting socially correct behaviour is
really bs. Because FOSS would be nowhere if everybody acted like you.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
7:22 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not
required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a waste of
time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many people (like you
perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want with the software and
forget all that childish crap.
I have forked other projects before and tried to
cooperate, follow
licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in
the proper spirit of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the
other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since
they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the
fact is just childish and stupid.
What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so
I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) This battle has a long history. It's called
"what can I get away
with?" :) Trust me: there's little to be proud of there. Talking about
spirit of FOSS and then neglecting socially correct behaviour is
really bs. Because FOSS would be nowhere if everybody acted like you.
There is no socially correct behavior in FOSS aside from adhering to the
license. You, along with others, are just imagining there is.
FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. Not every company or developer
that uses FOSS goes out of there way to thank the originators. They don't have
to. Yet at some point they contribute their work that may be built on previous
work. That is the thanks. So get a clue now and try to think beyond your ego.
7:38 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On 29 January 2011 18:22, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre Prokoudine
wrote:
Just because the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little
courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt.
Otherwise I agree with you.
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not
required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a waste of
time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many people (like you
perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want with the software and
forget all that childish crap.
I have forked other projects before and tried to
cooperate, follow
licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in
the proper spirit of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the
other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since
they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the
fact is just childish and stupid.
What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so
I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :) This battle has a long history. It's called
"what can I get away
with?" :) Trust me: there's little to be proud of there. Talking about
spirit of FOSS and then neglecting socially correct behaviour is
really bs. Because FOSS would be nowhere if everybody acted like you.
There is no socially correct behavior in FOSS aside from adhering to the
license. You, along with others, are just imagining there is.
FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. Not every company or developer
that uses FOSS goes out of there way to thank the originators. They don't have
to. Yet at some point they contribute their work that may be built on previous
work. That is the thanks. So get a clue now and try to think beyond your ego. 
8:14 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 18:38:58 +0000
James Morris <jwm.art.net(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just because the licenses don't mention being
nice, acting with little
courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt.
Otherwise I agree with you.
I was dismayed to see this thread and the way it developed. The comment above
is exactly my thoughts too.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
9:14 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On January 29, 2011 01:38:58 pm you wrote:
On 29 January 2011 18:22, Raymond Martin
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is
what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
absolutely required. That just shows ignorance of what FOSS is and that they
cannot read licenses properly.
On January 29, 2011 12:54:22 pm Alexandre
Prokoudine wrote:
Just because the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little
courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt.
Otherwise I agree with you. On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are
not required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a
waste of time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many
people (like you perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want
with the software and forget all that childish crap.
...
FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me. Not every company or
developer that uses FOSS goes out of there way to thank the originators.
They don't have to. Yet at some point they contribute their work that
may be built on previous work. That is the thanks. So get a clue now and
try to think beyond your ego. I have forked other projects before and tried to
cooperate, follow
licenses, only to have those projects act very territorial and not in
the proper spirit of FOSS.
Just fork anyway you like. It is best not to even bother letting the
other project know what you are doing, it is not their business since
they have freely chosen to go the FOSS way. Any complaining after the
fact is just childish and stupid.
What you are saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so
I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :)
10:08 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
It won't hurt, but is not required in any way,
shape, or form. And that is
what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
absolutely required.
You absolutely misread it.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
10:17 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Raymond Martin <laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It won't hurt, but is not required in any way,
shape, or form. And that is
what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
absolutely required.
no. they, we, i am acting as though you'd better have a pretty reason
("lack of sleep", "just forgot", "dog ate the webpage" will
almost do,
so its not much of a barrier) for NOT providing attribution if you do
NOT want the rest of the community to conclude that you're a douchebag
for forking a project. not because you need to, but because if you
want people to think nice thoughts about your motives as a forker,
being nice towards the original development time is likely to help
quite a bit.
however, i think your posts here have made it clear that you're the
sort of person who is not in the least bit concerned of whether people
have a positive opinion of you, and if that's true, then certainly you
can ignore everything but the license and nothing bad will happen from
your perspective.
in the specific case of OOM, i'm still not sure i really understand
why they didn't provide any attribution originally, but they have now,
and so the case is closed there. they are now "nice guys" doing more
than following licenses, by actually behaving as if they are part of a
community. neither they, or you, or i are required to behave in that
way, but i know that i certainly believe that the community does
better when people do.
31 Jan
31 Jan
5:31 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Saturday 29 January 2011 15:14:32 Raymond Martin wrote:
Not so sure about that. I think some people are saying that the licenses were
not followed. Perhaps I misread.
all the best,
drew
Just because
the licenses don't mention being nice, acting with little
courtesy when it comes to using the code written by others won't hurt.
Otherwise I agree with you.
It won't hurt, but is not required in any way, shape, or form. And that is
what people on this list are making a fuss about. They acting like it is
absolutely required. That just shows ignorance of what FOSS is and that
they cannot read licenses properly.
29 Jan
29 Jan
8:11 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/29/11, Raymond Martin wrote:
I can feel a holy war in the air :)
There are perfectly justified cases when a fork a necessary. Off top of my head:
- principal developer in the way of getting things done (Sodipodi > Inkscape)
- principal developer starting everything from scratch, because he
thinks he knows better (Protux > Traverso)
- principal developer not available and not replying any mails (GQView > Geeqie)
- developer/company at the helm of a project disrupting development
and threatening future of this project (OpenOffice > LibreOffice)
Your reasoning however is on the level of "Why does a dog lick his
balls? Because he can.".
In other words, the multitude of things that are legal doesn't 100%
overlap with multitude of things that are nice. All people learn it,
easy way or hard way. (Of course, some people never learn.)
What you are
saying boils down to "people had been dicks on me, so
I'll be a dick on everybody else in return". Talk about childish :)
Absolutely wrong. It is just a fact that you do not owe anything and are not
required to do anything besides adhere to the license. It is just a waste of
time to bother going through trying to be nice when so many people (like you
perhaps) react the wrong way. Just do what you want with the software and
forget all that childish crap. FOSS is everywhere by people acting like me.
This is the most awesome bullshit I heard this week :) I owe you few
minutes of good honest laughter. In all possible meanings, good and
bad, FOSS is where it is, because there are few people who give
against millions of people who take. When those few people who give
start fragmenting their efforts because they lack social skills and
patience (just like you they often have all sorts of amusing
justifications for that), they often get nowhere.
There are lots of projects that demand quite a lot of technical
competence and can only exist and mature, if people collaborate. I've
seen this recently with the whole dlRaw/jlRaw/Photivo forks story.
Even smaller, less significant projects suffer from lack of
collaboration. Most recently I was looking for a wiki app for Django
and came across half a dozen of forks, all originating from the first
app, all incomplete. Because people thought they knew better.
Not every company or developer that uses FOSS goes out
of there
way to thank the originators. They don't have to. Yet at some point
they contribute their work that may be built on previous work.
That is the thanks.
The "I don't owe anyone anything" attitude, right :)
Well, indeed doing some awesome work on top of someone else's work is
a very reasonable kind of gratitude, when you are civilized about
that.
So get a clue now and try to think beyond your ego.
I have one question: do you ever follow your own advices? :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
7:43 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 11:15 -0500, Raymond Martin wrote:
Stick to the license, that is all that is required of
you.
Yes, please do. Does it say that the GPL lifts the copyright? No it does
not! It is in fact copyright law that makes copyleft tick in the first
place.
You want to fork a project because it is a pig? Do so! but remember that
no matter how much lipstick you smear on it, it is still a ... Well,
what i mean is that the origin does not change and therefore you give
proper credit to all of the developers.
To remember: If copyrights were not explicitly and in writing signed
over to you then they were not.
/j
31 Jan
31 Jan
5:16 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Saturday 29 January 2011 10:17:36 Jens M Andreasen wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:05 +0200, Vytautas Jancauskas
wrote:
Since I think I kicked this off:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org/msg11217.h…
let me say that it was a general question and not one aimed at any current or
planned fork.
I just thought that for some people, it might be possible to start with
something but take it in a very / completely different direction. So
different that to name the one as a fork of the other might confuse people as
to what the forked program was useful for. Hence:
What if I "fork" a project
because I think it gives me a good
starting point
or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to
take things will
result in a completely different sort of program to the one I
forked?
a) We do not know neither your direction nor intend.
b) Is the program really completely different - according to who?
c) Because of a and b there is no c.
/j
> Would another term be useful?
all the best,
drew
27 Jan
27 Jan
9:15 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Thursday 27 January 2011 20:57:22 drew Roberts wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis
wrote:
There is really nothing wrong telling your users that you used another app as
starting point.
But there is something morally wrong when you tell your users that you used
another project as starting point and did more or less big changes but then
you refuse to tell your users which app you forked...
i just don't remember other cases where major
existing FLOSS projects
were forked
This is not about what is going in in this thread in any direct way. (Or
may not be at least, I do not know enough to say I guess.)
What if I "fork" a project because I think it gives me a good starting
point or base for what I want to do but the direction I intend to take
things will result in a completely different sort of program to the one I
forked? Should that still be considered a fork or is there another term
for such a beast? Would another term be useful?
9:17 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
From: Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:15 PM
But there is something morally wrong when you tell
your users that you used
another project as starting point and did more or less big changes but then
you refuse to tell your users which app you forked...
Yeah that would be wrong.
Do you know what code-base oom started from?
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
9:39 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
this thread was always going to happen....you said yourself on IRC Chris
Cherrit that you're a difficult guy to get along with; and seems you
were right.
I don't give a fuck how good you think you are or your team is or your
"professional team" is, or how tired you all are, or how many "nice
days" there are in the world... etc etc etc - Davis,Cannam,Schweer,Hohn
- these are mighty names who between them have build what is clearly the
best audio platform on earth. And they're fine examples of the human
race to boot. Generous,creative visionaries who have seen the potential
and have given it life. What have you contributed? You've taken their
work and made some slight changes. To take something from concept to
reality from scratch, which is what these men have done, that's laudable
- and it furthers the greater good.
Your OOM wouldn't exist PERIOD if it weren't for these guys. You have
had issues and acrimonious arguments with virtually all of them You
derisively attack all who "actively work against" your brilliant
plans/ideas/visions... I saw how you attacked Tim and Robert and Orcan
directly ( always telling them to "cool down" and have a NICE DAY!) even
when they always respectfully communicated to you in the best traditions
of FOSS.
I for one can certainly live without your project. And I will defend
these great names when ever they are challenged - by you or anyone else.
g.
9:51 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
From: Geoff Beasley <geoff(a)laughingboyrecords.com>
To: Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
Cc: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:32 PM
this thread was always going to happen....you said
yourself on IRC
Chris Cherrit that you're a difficult guy to get along with; and seems
you were right.
I don't give a fuck how good you think you are or your team is or your
"professional team" is, or how tired you all are, or how many "nice
days" there are in the world... etc etc etc -
Davis,Cannam,Schweer,Hohn - these are mighty names who between them
have build what is clearly the best audio platform on earth. And
they're fine examples of the human race to boot. Generous,creative
visionaries who have seen the potential and have given it life. What
have you contributed? You've taken their work and made some slight
changes. To take something from concept to reality from scratch, which
is what these men have done, that's laudable - and it furthers the
greater good.
Your OOM wouldn't exist PERIOD if it weren't for these guys. You have
had issues and acrimonious arguments with virtually all of them You
derisively attack all who "actively work against" your brilliant
plans/ideas/visions... I saw how you attacked Tim and Robert and Orcan
directly ( always telling them to "cool down" and have a NICE DAY!)
even when they always respectfully communicated to you in the best
traditions of FOSS.
I for one can certainly live without your project. And I will defend
these great names when ever they are challenged - by you or anyone else.
g.
Pucker up?
Yeah I checked your site.
http://www.laughingboyrecords.com/index.php/geoff-beasley
I understand why you are so resistant against our professional team.
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
9:56 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] What if a fork is not a fork?
From: Geoff Beasley <geoff(a)laughingboyrecords.com>
To: Christopher Cherrett <ccherrett(a)openoctave.org>
Cc: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 01:47 PM
On 01/28/2011 07:51 AM, Christopher Cherrett wrote:
I know you will be running oom behind the scenes :)
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
I understand why you are so resistant against our
professional team.
hahaha
my last comment to you and one this matter...
fork off.
g.
9:36 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:57 PM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis
wrote:
> i just don't remember other cases where major existing FLOSS projects
> were forked
The only instance I can think of is how Cinepaint (aka Film-Gimp) was
forked off from the Gimp. I think it deadended, though, when the Gimp
caught up to some of the same functionality
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.electricminstrel.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
9:40 p.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Brett McCoy <idragosani(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:57 PM, drew Roberts
<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
the rest of my sentence is important. there are quite a few forks. the
point was about whether the result of the fork clearly acknowledges
its ancestor, that's all.
LibreOffice is perhaps the most recent clear case of a fork, done
after Oracle got control of OpenOffice (and preceded by go-oo)
On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis
wrote:
> i just don't remember other cases where major existing FLOSS projects
> were forked
The only instance I can think of is how Cinepaint (aka Film-Gimp) was
forked off from the Gimp. I think it deadended, though, when the Gimp
caught up to some of the same functionality
28 Jan
28 Jan
12:15 a.m.
New subject: What if a fork is not a fork?
On 1/27/11, Brett McCoy wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:57 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
FilmGIMP was a friendly fork, kept in same CVS repo, but different
branch. The team behind it started doing everything properly after
that, i.e. developing GEGL, the new GIMP's non-destructive core, but
they didn't get very far and left.
Cinepaint is FilmGIMP picked up by a completely different team (and
there were battles and soure faces there as well). They ended up
trying to create their own new core and new UI and failed. Last time I
checked, Cinepaint seemd to have proper attributions to the initial
GIMP's team.
IIRC, quite a few major projects have been forked in the past. Bazaar
and bzr-ng, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice, Amarok and Clementine
(well, a time-machine fork in this case), Sodipodi and Inkscape, etc.
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
On Thursday 27 January 2011 11:56:22 Paul Davis
wrote:
> i just don't remember other cases where major existing FLOSS projects
> were forked
The only instance I can think of is how Cinepaint (aka Film-Gimp) was
forked off from the Gimp. I think it deadended, though, when the Gimp
caught up to some of the same functionality
27 Jan
27 Jan
9:11 p.m.
the fact that you forked Muse and not LMMS, for
example, makes OOM2 look much more
interesting than it could have been otherwise.
Well it was really simple to choose
muse. They had the best midi tools
to use hands down.
I just happen to be a graphic artist and could make it look nice for my
wife. It was a very simple straight forward solution to my problem.
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
8:35 p.m.
On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:51:26 Raymond Martin wrote:
He would have the right to be pissed (and quite rightly so). Taking and
modifying someone elses work and not giving credit is troubling. Even if you
adhered to the license and didn't change the copyright notices...
On January 27, 2011 11:08:30 am Paul Davis wrote:
I am _so_ glad the ideas of open source are not only about licenses...
...
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least.
It is not
troubling at all. And completely in accord with licenses, the
only real thing that matters. if you had
done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
And you would have no right to say anything actually as long as the license
was adhered to. Any complaint that has nothing to do with licenses is
just
moralizing.
Which is exactly what Paul Davis was talking about.
I think we can all do without any of that noise, thank
you.
Nobody has to thank you for your work. They might, but it is not required.
Since you choose to put it out as FOSS this is exactly what you have agreed
to.
Strictly speaking in the term of laws you are correct. But as we gladly do not
live in a world exclusively ruled by laws, there is more to it than what the
gpl says.
And FOSS is not only about a license. It is about giving credit where credit
is due (otherwise the license would just be the famous "public domain" or
"non
commercial public domain" or something like that).
But funnily enough while you accused Paul Davis of anger, it became clear to
the whole list (and the world internet) that in fact you guys have a big
problem with paul and his work. So much you read personal things into
everything he says...
BTW: He probably wouldn't have a problem with it if your website reads
"Because ardour broke on us and the devs didn't want to do what we wanted, we
choose to fork muse". But apparently you have such a big problem with it that
even that is for you to much acknowledgment of pauls work...
Anyway good luck with your project. Always sign of a good start when not
technical facts but personal reasons made you start it...
Have fun,
Arnold
8:43 p.m.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
To: linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Date: 01/27/2011 12:35 PM
On Thursday 27 January 2011 17:51:26 Raymond Martin
wrote:
He would have the right to be pissed (and quite rightly so).
Taking and
modifying someone elses work and not giving credit is troubling. Even if you
adhered to the license and didn't change the copyright notices...
I hope you do not hold it to
us as you enjoy running it. Open source is
great right?
Thanks!
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett(a)openoctave.org
http://www.openoctave.org
On January 27, 2011 11:08:30 am Paul Davis
wrote:
I am _so_ glad the ideas of open source are not only
about licenses...
...
while i admire what you are trying to do with OOM/OOM2, the forking of
an existing, well-known project, without any attribution whatsoever,
or even acknowledgement of the fork, is troubling to say the least.
It is not
troubling at all. And completely in accord with licenses, the
only real thing that matters. if you
had done this with ardour, i'd be raising bloody hell about it.
And you would
have no right to say anything actually as long as the license
was adhered to. Any complaint that has nothing to do with
licenses is just
moralizing.
Which is exactly what Paul Davis was talking about.
I think we can all do without any of that noise,
thank you.
Nobody has to thank you for your work. They might, but it is not required.
Since you choose to put it out as FOSS this is exactly what you have agreed
to.
Strictly speaking in the term of laws you are correct. But as we gladly do
not
live in a world exclusively ruled by laws, there is more to it than what the
gpl says.
And FOSS is not only about a license. It is about giving credit where credit
is due (otherwise the license would just be the famous "public domain" or
"non
commercial public domain" or something like that).
But funnily enough while you accused Paul Davis of anger, it became clear to
the whole list (and the world internet) that in fact you guys have a big
problem with paul and his work. So much you read personal things into
everything he says...
BTW: He probably wouldn't have a problem with it if your website reads
"Because ardour broke on us and the devs didn't want to do what we wanted, we
choose to fork muse". But apparently you have such a big problem with it that
even that is for you to much acknowledgment of pauls work...
Anyway good luck with your project. Always sign of a good start when not
technical facts but personal reasons made you start it...
Have fun,
Arnold
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
4833
days inactive
4837
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
42 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
alex stone -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Arnold Krille -
Brett McCoy -
Chris Cannam -
Christopher Cherrett -
drew Roberts -
Folderol -
Geoff Beasley -
James Morris -
Jens M Andreasen -
mickski -
mickski56
-
Paul Davis -
Raymond Martin -
Vytautas Jancauskas