24 Oct
2012
24 Oct
'12
10:10 p.m.
On Thu, October 25, 2012 8:30 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
If you care to do some research Dominic has personally offered to do just
that for anyone who was interested even going so far as to offer to put
all his applicable code online. Given that Christian and Rui wrote the
Majority of it and have already opensourced most of the useful stuff there
doesn't seem to be any specific purpose to push harder than that. The code
is open and both Rui and christian are very active contributors to LAD so
logic and rational suggests there is nothing to be gained by jumping up
and down about the issue.
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
Are you suggesting that there is nothing to be gained from politely
alerting companies of their legal obligations before they get into
trouble?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
What makes you think I was referring to either Korg or Yamaha?
Above you said "every time". I was pointing out that it is not everytime.
Anyway this situation is completely different.
Fairlight are shipping
products that already use Linux software. They have a legal obligation
under the GPL.
To you? Are you their client?
Out of
curiosity, why is it that every time some vendor makes use of
free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"?
Is it the only thing that interests you?
No one did anything about Korg or Yamaha for all these years. What makes
you think that it's everyones first reaction? Look at Groove
OS too. Rui and Christian fed back a huge amount of their
code into their existing open source solutions so nobody was upset if
Lionstracs didn't publicly release all their code in a single package.
They still have the obligation, as you've just said yourself. You
might as well go after them. Or are we back to the old tried double
standards? :)
In this case
Fairlight may just not be aware of their explicit legal
obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for
example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy
alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm>