1 Nov
2016
1 Nov
'16
1:22 p.m.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:09:45 +0100
Massimo Barbieri <massimo(a)fsfe.org> wrote:
If you do not have enough time, or competence like me,
to review
source code of the software you use, there are people that do this
boring work for you in order to assure you that the software you use
will do exactly what you expect. This people are the contributors
developers, and we have at least 71 people who control Ardour[1] for
you, and 26 who control Hydrogen[2] for you. And you can talk with
them asking for bugs correction, new features or more stability, if
this is what you are looking for. A very different approach from the
proprietary software.
No difference at all. None whatsoever.
It is amazing how the context is extrapolated and hyped to sustain
an activism of 'us and them'.
The context is Linux audio/music. Not illuminati vs. human nature or
some such.
Why shoot in one's own foot ?
Every sentence that you have written, quoted above, can be matched
equally by proprietary offerings. No difference at all, apart from the
name of the software products, and the number of people.
Every single notion brought in your text can be matched by u-he,
Harrison, discoDSP, Bitwig, all who are makers of commercial products
that runs on Linux.
I do not expect that a software that I use for
recording music can do
nasty or evil things. But what about an email client, or a browser, or
an operative system?
This is Linux audio.
I complete agree with yPhil, and that's why I
applied the free
software reasons to my music, and I share not only my songs, but even
my single recordings tracks and Ardour project with a CC-BY-SA
license.
You could very well sell your music made with Open Source software.
The FLOSS license should not apply to the products made with the
software itself.
Cheers.
--
NP: "Dittatura della mediocrita" - Deus ex Machina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acrdYjceBrQ