19 Dec
2004
19 Dec
'04
8:08 p.m.
On Sunday 19 December 2004 08:16 am, Marek Peteraj wrote:
I know. :)
I know :}
This is what doesn't make sense. Why do they want to stay proprietary? It
seems to me that they'd make more money working with folk to get optimal
drivers and firmware {and, by extension, increased compatibility} for their
hardware... SGI, IBM, etc, etc have learned this...
Do they need Windows zealots that badly?
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 19:01, Rick Taylor wrote:
Absolutely agreed. However, judging from a year old
discussion, it seems
theres no consensus to do this at least for linux audio.
Maybe looking at "linux audio" as a separate entity is part of the problem?
What would it take to set up a subscription broadcast system with a plug in
applet for folks docks/taskbars?
Copyright isn't the issue here. The issue here is
basically - someone
does work he doesn't get paid for, and another one profits from such
work.
I meant RMEs copyright to their firmware/drivers. It's the
only thing really
keeping you from just using that code. If folk could give them a reason
to go open source with it I'm sure they'd let go of it or write linux
firmware and work with developers to get compatible software put
together.
This is different for specifications, drivers and firmware.
In case of firmware, the are probably more hurdles than just the wish to
stay proprietary, since there are no free devtools for for most fpgas,
dsps and such. In case of specs or drivers, they are free to do what
rme did with
fireface or what audioscience usually does with their own products.
It all becomes a moral issue right now.
Linux is the entity doing the sales, no?
--
www.RTaylor-Design.Com
{I don't see
why they'd not want to pay folk to write linux firmware. {open source or
not} Apparently they don't realize how many linux users they have.
But it seems ridiculous to me that a typical company isn't tracking
every opportunity to generate revenue.