27 Feb
2007
27 Feb
'07
9:34 a.m.
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 12:02 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
Here's the earlier flam^H^H^H^Hargument. I
don't have much to add.
http://www.music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2006-February/01474…
It's really a five pints in the pub discussion.
in the following example, switch FL studio by whatever you see fit to
transport the argument.
say you say "i want to use FL studio". what you mean by that is that you
want to use something that has the interface and handling of FL studio.
let us assume that interface and handling has been designed with
attractiveness in mind: that users will prefer this kind of interface
and use/buy the application because of that - which is exactly why "i
want to use FL studio" actually came up.
implicitly, you also mean: "...but i don't want to pay anything for it,
and i need the freedom to modify and share this software." this, FL
studio can only provide to some extent, by the restrictive nature of the
FL developers business model.
now we apply your marie-antoinette-like reasoning of "well, then use FL
studio!". hence, using FL studio would be a compromise between the need
of free software (obviously, a need you should suppress) and the need of
an interface which you deem attractive (which values over the need for
free software, by your argument).
it goes further: since you see the interface of FL studio as part of an
"evaluative method that is drawn from business", the interface of FL
studio should NOT be cloned in a free software application, because
this, by your argument, would mean an act of competition - and acts of
competition are, by your argument, part of business. however this
solution would provide a full solution for the needs described above.
what is your reasoning for denying such a solution, if you had the power
to control the fate of development?
--
Leonard Ritter
-- Freelance Art & Logic
-- http://www.leonard-ritter.com