I agree with Nils 100%. Fons mentions the second fork seems to be changing the license. Both situations are ignorant of the spirit of FOSS in my opinion. If you go commercial let me know. I'll buy everything you make ! g Sent from my smartphone.  -------- Original message -------- From: Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> Date: 19/09/2013 7:16 AM (GMT+10:00) To: Linux Audio Users <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>,Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org> Subject: [LAD] Aeolus Hello all, It has come to my attention that there are ATM at least two 'forks' of Aeolus. The first by the MuseScore team, the second by one Maurizio Gavioli. Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of their work, and both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not approve of. Gavioli has even added his 'copyright' to the sources of the libraries that Aeolus depends on but which are not part of its source distribution. Apparently the intention is to release incompatible versions of those as well. If this is typical for the attitude taken by the Linux Audio community then my motivation to contribute to it will take a serious blow. As announced previously, there will be a fully reworked release of Aeolus next year (on the occasion of its 10th birthday). Apart from major improvements to the audio code it will be completely OSC controlled. None of this will be compatible with the forks of course, they'll find themselves instantly obsolete. And I will make sure that this sort of thing won't happen again, even if that means a more restrictive license. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev