11 Dec
2007
11 Dec
'07
3:20 a.m.
Sebastian Tschöpel wrote:
Musicians don't care if the maker of their software disappears or not.
If they really like the tool, they'll continue using it. If they decide
to replace it with something else later on, they'll do that.
But the open-source project doesn't necessarily shutdown. Someone else
interested, (and usually there are, I think there are pretty few
moribund open source projects), takes it over and continues, expands, or
even massively improves it. Or just merges it into something better.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Hi Jan,
But it applies. I'm a musician, at least to a degree. Being able to
directly ask the developer for some feature that I think would be really
cool and just what I need to use - and having a chance of actually
getting it without having to wait wait wait while Big Corporate Company
gets around to implementing it and THEN most likely charges me a big
upgrade fee to get it - makes me quite happy.
1) the
ability to directly ask the author(s) for a feature or bug fix and ....
Well, i thought of that, too. But that was more a general open-source
issue to me and not directly connected with making music. 2) The
"company"
can go out of business and the tool won't be unsupported (unless
absolutely no one was using it). Even in that case, if you have some
money, you could probably hire someone to do some work on it.
Of course you could but again: I tried to focus on what a musician would
think:
He won't try to proceed with the development of a tool when the project
is shut
down. At least not the musicians i know. They want to produce music as easy
as possible :)