On Friday 17 December 2004 01:04 pm, Paul Brossier wrote: Nah, nobody is interested in running the app, just dickering about licensing... Frankly, I _really_ don't think there's room for elitism coming from LAU because non-free software currently kicks our asses up and down the street as far as functionality goes. What's good to advance the cause is good apps. The source doesn't matter. Hell, I'd pay a dollar not to hear such silliness before I'd complain about gratis-ware Not quite sure where you were going with the package criticism in your prior mail. If a deb package exists that doesn't meant it has to be distributed by Debian. It sounded to me like the author is willing to provide the resources to distribute it alongside whatever he's got now.

On Saturday 18 December 2004 10:20 am, Dave Robillard wrote: pWn3d Source of the apps, not source code. All of the good things about free software are not constants that apply in every case or context. It's the fact's Jack, for most people source code is worth bupkis. Just because we happen to not be most people does not invalidate that. Linux as an audio platform is about the _runtime_. Linux audio _development_ is about the source code. Not everybody can or is willing to do both; it's a barrier to adoption. I don't apologize for trying to reap some reward from helping others over the barriers. That's a fair statement, but you telling me what my opinion is and what matters to me is not having the effect you intended. If you want to walk the altruism walk, you do IIRC, have the skills to fix what you see as evil. If it's not a problem for you, we're in analogous situations. I have a hard time believing Andreas' statement is coming from a need to audit every line of code on his system. It makes sense in the context of being in the official Debian pool, but barring a misinterpretation somewhere along the line that wasn't the context.

On Saturday 18 December 2004 08:31 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote: Another person that knows what I care about? Look, my OSS credentials are impeccable and my dedication to doing what I think is right is certifiably uncontestable. I'm a stickler for abiding by the copyright holders terms "." It _ALL_ rests on respect for the copyright holders terms. You want respect you gotta give respect, but you gotta stand up for it to earn it as well. A) This is Linux Audio list not EFF. The S/N ratio here sucks as it is. (oh sweet irony) B) The GPL is not the be all end all ideal of licenses. C) We don't, nor will we ever live in an ideal world. The above is my official statement with regard to any further challenges to my moral standing. My point all along in the discussion is: Don't challenge the license because it's not your business, it's the authors. You can knock down the code, the runtime, or the spit shine on the guy's mother's army shoes for all I care, but it's the height of hypocrisy to disrespect the copyright holders distribution terms. Well then you just cut off a large potential user base. How that serves to spread the gospel must be counter intuitive. Why don't you make an official statement and post a link, because people want to know. *crickets* *tumbleweed* *coyote* Guy, I don't need the source code. I really don't. You may, but I don't. Sometimes I want to see it. Sometimes I need it to make a binary because there is no other option. I like the option of having it available. Sometimes I even poke it with a stick and let the author know if any maggots fall out, but it's not a requirement. If a prog sounds interesting, I want to spend most of the introduction time running the code to see if it's even worth taking the time to download the source. I say I don't care about access to the source code, which is the developers melieu, you say you don't care about the runtime, which is the users melieu. It's two sides of the same coin, so let's all just do what we gotta do instead of going around in circles.

On Sunday 19 December 2004 07:27 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote: I'm not reviewing, you've already wasted enough of my time. The point is nobody but the author has any right to say anything about the terms of distribution. You either agree or you don't. If you agree, go have a drink and celebrate. If you disagree go shoot now yourself because the GPL isn't spit without copyright law and if you don't recognize that life isn't going to get any easier. Show me the flawed logic in that statement and the output of: du -csh $directory_where_marek_keeps_his_pirated_mp3's if you expect me to dignify any further replies with an answer. Hmm, well, be glad I'm not putting any words in your mouth because you'd look even more foolish than you do by putting words in mine. Do you think I'm here for the aggravation? I'm here because of the sorry ass state of documentation WRT linux audio development. I don't like the pricing structure and a lot of other things about proprietary technology and one side benefit of what I want to do is destroying that pricing structure. Concern over whether I want to or can spend the money is pure douchebaggery on your part. If freedom is paramount for you, it's a moot point. Make your case with logic, not the mirror of your own insecurities. --- Communication Terminated

On Sunday 19 December 2004 11:00 am, Dave Robillard wrote: Selfish Selfish. Mind you, I'm selfish too, as are we all, so you don't care, I don't care. Sweet! Let's all have a cup of STFU over it then. That didn't work the first time. I'm not telling you guys what you think. I'm telling you what I think. When I bring up copyright, it's not even what I think, it's the law of the land. Not my law although I abide by it. The people with the army, their law. Well if that's what you think it's about, why did you use caps when addressing me? In the future I would appreciate a style of emphasis not indicative of shouting please, or at least make it funny. I almost got nasty about that when I was replying yesterday and used considerable restraint to remain civil. You and I have had off list discussions that were 80% misinterpretation driven so I cut you some slack. So, what are you calling your reimplementation of Scala then? It doesn't matter to anybody but you (editorial sense) what your cause is. I'm not judging anybody, I acknowledge it takes all kinds. I'll try not to sound too patronizing and I hate to do this on list but, my recollection is you're a 20 something musician/grad student who's plans are X,Y and Z. I don't question your commitment at this point in time, but y'know, look at human history. Do you expect to be where you are now in 10 years? How do you propose to parlay your free software contributions into a living? It's a dilemma you'll need to deal with if that's the plan. If yer counting on hacking in your spare time... talk to the people who would be your peers. I'm a 44 year old musician/former audio engineer/computer bottom feeder with no day job and no formal education who's likely had more ups and downs than you've had hot meals and sees a great opportunity for someone with my particular skill set, thanks to the hard work of a lot of talented people. As far as platform gnosticism goes, I have no reason not to use linux. I know it well and it does what I want at a reasonable cost without pissing me off too much. Here, I'm selfish. What somebody else uses is of no concern to me unless I'm getting paid to support it. I think your apparent lack of concern for what kernel the apps run on combined with the insistence on telling me what's best for "my cause" is cute, like when a puppy runs headlong into a sliding door, so knock it off. Search the list archive for my position paper. Read it. Notice that it acknowledges everybody has their own areas of expertise and that I state in clear english, a strategy to generate a pool of development money that doesn't require any effort from the community. I also state that I do not code and intended to act as a filter between users and developers. Logic will tell you that is a good state of affairs for people who do code. I watched the thread regarding prototyping a PCI card with some interest as well. It's an ambitious goal and I'd rather work on bootstrapping that than cock around playing holier-than-thou on a list. We all make our contributions, whatever they may be. One has to be a pragmatist in life though. I'd rather see a task being done on Linux generating some mind share to feed the machine than tell a client "Linux can't do it because author A wrote his own license".

On Sunday 19 December 2004 06:30 pm, Dave Robillard wrote: Other people got it. Go print out the thread and take a weekend retreat. Correct, but you did say you wanted to see a 100% free platform, and you do have the skills, and I assumed that you would take the initiative. Remember "code talks and bullshit walks"? Well, it's getting really stinky in here. Vocabulary word of the day: try Sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and since you didn't refute any of that.... Yes, I know you have a cognitive deficiency. Let's see, I disagree with you and I'm still talking about making an opportunity for you or anybody else with the chops, so it must be me, right? My interest is to make the world a better place. I'm not yet on the plane of existence where I've transcended the need for trivia like food, shelter, and clothing. I want to insulate users from the horseshit (like this) that turns people off. If you don't like me abiding by the GPL and being a stickler on copyright, you don't understand what the GPL is all about. Be glad I'm using my power for good instead of evil. Yeah I'm bald, have backne and athletes foot too. Idiot is your word not mine. This black/white vision thing... you should see a Doctor about that. The burden is on you, and you're wasting my time. Why, so you can not get it _again_? Yeah, and? There's nothing locking anybody into me as a vendor other than lack of competition and trust. You can take the concept and run with it if you want, anybody can. No, I described what I intend to do and where I intend to get the carrots to dangle. Whether anybody here cooperates or not is not the lynchpin that holds it all together. I'm not holding a gun to anybodies head, and I'm not doing anything prohibited by the license. The only precedent I might possibly be setting is not sticking all the proceeds in my pocket. If I wanted money, I'd sell commercial insurance. I'm not a surprise that you don't see it, because it's called "entrepreneurship" and it's hard work with a high risk of failure. It's not like academia where you can show up, go through the motions, graduate with a C average and still get a decent job because you went to the same Uni as the H.R. guy. Not everybody has the strength of will and determination to walk the walk but you're only fueling the fire if you keep giving me aggression to redirect. What, you mean like SHOUTING? Like you wouldn't if you could. The best you could do was call me out for being "old and unemployed" and I handed you that on a silver platter. Yah, right. Learn how to argue and don't rely on logical fallacy to provoke reactions then maybe all the stuff that goes over your head might sink in. Rhetorical question: You wanna go back and paste where I did that? Or was the puppy analogy just too close to home? I won't be hiring you, that's for sure.

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 21:38 -0500, Dave Robillard wrote: Please, guys, take it off the list. You are going to drive off people who make a valuable contribution and DON'T engage in flame wars. Lee

On sön, 2004-12-19 at 01:46 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Fons I have studied scales from apart the world since I was a teenager. That (Scala) package reveals *nada* that isn't already well known. Really! It is of course the authors right to stamp his copyright on it. He is in to quite a few eggs in face in court though! -- ( ) c[] mvh // Jens M Andreasen

On sön, 2004-12-19 at 12:45 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Me? No not litle me :) But let us see ... This stuff was formalized in India a few thousind years ago, so if we google for: google: raga intonation scale Then we get: Modes and Ragas: More Than just a Scale http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11633/latest/ .. as the first hit. Mmm ... Looks relevant, but I'll read it first and comment later. -- ( ) c[] mvh // Jens M Andreasen

On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 17:32 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: Yeah, I really hate those cryptic error messages like "No such file or directory". Please. Any "technically capable" user would figure out in a microsecond that the above means you are missing a library that the binary is linked against. It even tells you exactly which fscking file you need. The fix is apt-get install libgnarl or whatever. You would get a very similar error trying to compile the program if you didn't have the libgnarl-devel package installed. This is not a question of open vs closed source it's USER ERROR. There are much better examples to illustrate your point (like the old story of RMS and the printer driver). Even for a troll that's pretty weak. Lee

On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 01:27 +0100, Marek Peteraj wrote: plonk

Marek Peteraj wrote: These flamewars are making me want to unsubscribe from LAD. Please stop being so hostile. Taybin

On Sunday 19 December 2004 06:59 pm, Taybin Rutkin wrote: I'm going to be switching to a digest myself. It's becoming counterproductive.

On Monday 20 December 2004 08:59 pm, Lee Revell wrote: Oh, I'll be here, but (thankfully) can't usually do exchanges in real time. That's how things get dragged out, but it helps keeps the bear caged. I should just go be an arms dealer, then at least I wouldn't have to watch the carnage or be hassled for being an evil capitalist.

Actually it's a rather smart license and i'm glad it's been widely adopted. The fact that GPL needs another revision is another story. application? Err, actually the more people find it useful the more popular it is. <snip a whole lot> I can't believe what i'm reading. Let me suggest that we all just shut up from now on? Marek

On Sunday 19 December 2004 07:41 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote: Not a point of dispute Introjection (see Perls definition) Sounds like a plan.

On Saturday 18 December 2004 11:48 pm, Marek Peteraj wrote: Perhaps utility.

Paul Brossier wrote: That is correct. The request was not to add it to Debian but only to help creating a Debian package (a .deb file). It might help a bit to convince him. Cheers, Andreas BTW: The source code is available.