Re: [LAU] Look ma, I'm in the paper :)

On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:27:50 +0100 Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote: Strange freedom where one is obliged to do certain things when re-using. "You must give appropriate credit by writing ..." "you must distribute your contributions under the same license" I can get a sample pack and use anything without having to give credit, and without to perpetuate the same licensing. For a user, which one has more freedom ? Tell that to someone who has invested $350,000 in developing a product. I feel that while there is life in me I feel sharing because this is life essence of interaction. In the context of music, no arguments so far made it for Open Source. They all sound like some fantasy land where unknown people spontaneously add features to Open Source software because they read about a good idea in a forum; where musicians spends countless hours of learning software code; where bugs gets fixed by those same unknown people because they read it in a forum and wanted to Share in this Fantasy, and so on so forth. Of course no so much of that happens. Any serious projects has guidelines, aims, goals. Software functions and functionality cannot be spawned like a Hydra, if not it becomes a nightmare to maintain and prevents evolution. No musician spends months of studying code. Insisting on these aspects only, IMHO, blocks mainstream investment in the platform, for the music domain (not talking servers nor embedded here), by coming across like uprooted, not having to earn a living, fantasy-like and, not so much freedom as dissension is quite often frowned apart by Holders of the Knowledge 'star' figures who would perhaps found themselves at ease chasing witches in a past century :) There must be better arguments to have Open Source in the music domain, isn't it ? Cheers.