27 Apr
2005
27 Apr
'05
8:10 a.m.
Hi,
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Alfons Adriaensen wrote:
Speaking for myself, as I was the one who were explicitly willing to write
some code, I don't have much of a problem to spend some time in filling in
the ALSA and JACK pieces that are missing in JUCE.
Comparably, the coding/testing effort that I'm proposing is a whole lot
lesser significant than the one Julian has already done and offered as GPL
to all our benefit. Sincerely I do praise and thank very much Jules for
putting such a remarkable code framework into the OSS community. Please,
don't get him wrong. I think its way far better to have him on our side
than against, even if dual-licensing maybe considered evil to some, erm...
zealots? I personally find it just fair enough. But that might be just me.
Sorry.
OTOH, I don't really care if he changes the (my?) code to his liking or
not. To tell the truth, sometimes, I find myself doing the same, let alone
what happens on Linux kernel development, as Andreas mentioned. IMNSHO the
main issue is all about giving the right credit and attribution, not about
actual coding style ;)
I'm just talking about helping in filling the gap of the interface to
JACK/ALSA into JUCE, to make it ultimately useful on our Audio/MIDI
platform of choice. And who else has a better expertise on this, other
than the LAD community ?
Hope I get understood, and advised too :)
Cheers.
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
Julian Storer wrote:
This mailing list should not be used to distribute unfounded insinuations
or slanders.
Have a look at the development process used for the Linux kernel. There
are pretty strict rules for the code and many non-regular contributors
are not aware of them. Sometimes the code is changed so that it follows
the rules and in other cases it simply is rejected.
BTW: I agree that dual licensing can lead to problems.
... - I've only taken a few bits from other
people, and it's
generally involved them sending me something they've written, and then
me re-writing it because it's not done in quite the way I like it!
...
2. The quote above is quite informative IMHO. This type accepts
possibly GPL-ed code from others, rewrites it completely so he
can claim it is his own work, and then sells it.