18 Sep
2013
18 Sep
'13
11:16 p.m.
Hello all,
It has come to my attention that there are ATM at least two
'forks' of Aeolus. The first by the MuseScore team, the second
by one Maurizio Gavioli.
Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of their
work, and both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not
approve of. Gavioli has even added his 'copyright' to the
sources of the libraries that Aeolus depends on but which
are not part of its source distribution. Apparently the
intention is to release incompatible versions of those as
well.
If this is typical for the attitude taken by the Linux Audio
community then my motivation to contribute to it will take
a serious blow.
As announced previously, there will be a fully reworked
release of Aeolus next year (on the occasion of its 10th
birthday). Apart from major improvements to the audio code
it will be completely OSC controlled. None of this will be
compatible with the forks of course, they'll find themselves
instantly obsolete. And I will make sure that this sort of
thing won't happen again, even if that means a more restrictive
license.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
18 Sep
18 Sep
11:29 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
Hello all,
It has come to my attention that there are ATM at least two
'forks' of Aeolus. The first by the MuseScore team, the second
by one Maurizio Gavioli.
Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of their
work, and both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not
approve of. Gavioli has even added his 'copyright' to the
sources of the libraries that Aeolus depends on but which
are not part of its source distribution. Apparently the
intention is to release incompatible versions of those as
well.
If this is typical for the attitude taken by the Linux Audio
community then my motivation to contribute to it will take
a serious blow.
As announced previously, there will be a fully reworked
release of Aeolus next year (on the occasion of its 10th
birthday). Apart from major improvements to the audio code
it will be completely OSC controlled. None of this will be
compatible with the forks of course, they'll find themselves
instantly obsolete. And I will make sure that this sort of
thing won't happen again, even if that means a more restrictive
license.
Ciao,
Respectfully, you granted people the right to fork your code in the first
place. Now you say you might take this right away, but why? How has it
harmed you or anyone else? Why should you have been notified that a fork
took place? The whole point of free software is that people can adapt it to
their needs and share their changes with those with similar needs. If those
forks are better suited to the task at hand than your original code, then
people may well use them (and that's a good thing!). If your new release is
better, people may well use that. Isn't that the point? To help people?
Plus, if the forks did/do make any improvements that you value, hey, that's
great merge them, not that I think you'd ever do that ;-)
We can't all be all things to everybody all the time. The value of your
projects isn't necessarily in the complete package with your name on it. If
someone takes your engine and slaps a new interface on it that people like
better, well, they still use your engine, right? It's hard to put your ego
aside sometimes, but I really recommend that you do. You've contributed a
lot to Linux Audio and I'd hate to see that ruined by bruised egos and
non-free licenses.
11:54 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
Am 18.09.2013 23:29, schrieb J. Liles:
I also see it that way but I also understand Fons. To fork without
telling the author is allowed by license but anyway: it is also allowed
by law to step into a room without answering, if someone says "good
morning". License is one thing, manners are another and both should be
observed.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> It has come to my attention that there are ATM at least two
> 'forks' of Aeolus. The first by the MuseScore team, the second
> by one Maurizio Gavioli.
>
> Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of their
> work, and both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not
> approve of.
[...]
Ciao,
Respectfully, you granted people the right to fork your code in the first
place. Plus, if the forks did/do make any improvements that
you value
Looks like they do not ;-)
@Fons: if you do not like the way in that your software is forked, maybe
ask them to use a different name?
just my 2c
HZN
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
19 Sep
19 Sep
12:28 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:29:02PM -0700, J. Liles wrote:
Respectfully, you granted people the right to fork
your code in the first
place.
Yes, and now I know that was a mistake.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
12:40 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
Very respectfully, Fons. May I ask, why do you think it was a bad idea?
Isn't this one of the good things about free software? The ability for
people to fork and do different things with your code? If you don't like
what they're doing, keep working on your original forks. Knowing the
quality of your work and your reputation, this should not pose a problem to
you. Where is it that you see this as a problem?
Regards,
Rafael Vega.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:29:02PM -0700, J. Liles
wrote:
--
Rafael Vega
email.rafa(a)gmail.com
Respectfully, you granted people the right to
fork your code in the first
place.
Yes, and now I know that was a mistake.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:31 a.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
Am 19.09.2013 00:28, schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:29:02PM -0700, J. Liles
wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. :-(
Please don't let you lead from the things you didn't like, let you lead
from the things you like instead.
I guess then it's necessary to let you know that we use /as well/ a fork
of your work, the zita-convolver library, in the guitarix project. But
we leave your copyright untouched, and the fork will only come in use,
when the user set a explicit compile flag. We didn't promote it, or
force the fork. Ordinary your original code is in use.
We do it to use ffmpeg instead fftw3 FFT, which perform better on ARM
devices.
We do our best to let all users know that it is your work, which comes
in use for the convolution.
I really hope you re-think your stance and keep going with the GPL to
enable Forks of your work, instead force us to re-invent the wheel.
greets
hermann
Respectfully, you granted people the right to
fork your code in the first
place.
Yes, and now I know that was a mistake.
Ciao,
6:34 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
....
I'm a bit mystified.
Fons, you explicitly granted other developers the right to do...
exactly what they did. And now you're miffed about it?
I'm.... missing something.
There is not and never was any expectation in free / open source that
you, as a developer, are owed anything whatsoever by those who use
your code (outside of stipulations of the license). And you,
similarly, don't owe them anything either.
Perfect symmetry. That's where it starts from. Letting go of the
need to control everything, to enforce being the smartest guy in the
room. Sometimes a nice little community of mutual cooperation springs
up... It happens often, but that's still the exception, not the most
common case.
Now, if others play dirty, strip off your copyright attribution for
example, claim they wrote it not you, that's different. I'll join you
on the warpath. Did that happen in this case?
(95% or more of the folks who use my code fork it and I never hear
about it. That has always been true. I didn't even know Spotify was
using Vorbis until somone spotted the symbols. The freaking iPhone
ships a fork of Speex, again, found by dumping a Siri stream. AoTuV.
A hundred other examples that I'm perfectly fine with...)
If you want a community, you have to build it. No one owes it to you,
no one will do it for you. Writing the code is the easiest part of
building an ecosystem. Ecosystem dynamics are hard. Closing the
source will probably make it harder.
Monty
4:55 p.m.
New subject: [LAD] Aeolus
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:29:02PM -0700, J. Liles wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
> It has come to my attention that there are ATM at least two
> 'forks' of Aeolus. The first by the MuseScore team, the second
> by one Maurizio Gavioli.
Respectfully, you granted people the right to fork
your code in the first
place.
Respect is indeed the key word here.
Speaking personally, I feel that the rights granted by Open Source users are
there to protect users against developers who are not acting in their best
interets. There is, I would say, at least a moral obligation that you try to
work with those developers before simply taking their work without any
consideration for them.
Developers of Open Source software are doing their users a huge favour, and
some level of respect and courtesy is the least they ought to be able to
expect.
This is not intended as a comment on this specific case or any other as I
don't know the details, merely on the implication that just because you have
the Right to do something if you need to, it's OK to go ahead and do it
without any further consideration.
bjb
12:02 a.m.
Hello Fons!
As a user of Aeolus, you should know, that I've always appreciated it and I
know of at least two other friends not on any list, who also love it. But you
have been around along time now. As you said, it's Aeolus' 10th birthday next
year. So you should know, that the community usually treats source code
kindly, except the occasional flames about quality and technical approaches to
problems. Where would we be without that? :-)
I can understand, that you're vexed. I only hope, that this won't lead to a
lot of people not sharing the potential of your software and other software
and the potential of their performing music.
Warmly yours
Julien
----------------------------------------
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
12:13 a.m.
Fons Adriaensen said:
And I will make sure that this sort of
thing won't happen again, even if that means a more restrictive
license.
Ciao,
That would be a pity. I think your great work is well known in the linux
audio community and this thing shouldn't make you change the license of
your software.
I also think that if someone wants to fork a project to make such big
changes, he should at least tell the original author and change the name
of the forked software (like mysql and mariadb).
I hope you can continue your great work in the audio thing!
Ciao,
Guido
12:23 a.m.
On Wednesday 18 September 2013 17:16:38 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Hello all,
It has come to my attention that there are ATM at least two
'forks' of Aeolus. The first by the MuseScore team, the second
by one Maurizio Gavioli.
Fine so far. I would be happy if people were to fork some of my
inconsequential stuff.
Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of their
work,
Not a big problem. If this were to occur with some of my stuff in isolation, I
might think it a not wise move on t heir part but I don't think I would be
too miffed.
and both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not
approve of.
Fine, but that is part of the whole Freedom game. People can take my song
lyrics and re-write them to convey a message that goes directly against what
I belive in. That is what free people can do. I don't want the level of
control over others that would allow me to prevent this. I would be happy if
I could figure how to make such insightful arguments that people would not
but that is a whole different ball game.
Gavioli has even added his 'copyright' to the
sources of the libraries that Aeolus depends on but which
are not part of its source distribution. Apparently the
intention is to release incompatible versions of those as
well.
Here, you are being unclear and if it means one of the things I think it
could, Ican see you properly having a very big issue with this.
You say he has *even* added his 'copyright' to the sources of the libraries
that Aeolus depends on.
Does this mean he has also added his 'copyright' to Aeolus?
And when you say *added* his 'copyright', do you mean added his copyright to
the existing copyright notice or do you mean replaced the copyright notice
with one indicating he is the copyright holder for the complete work?
If copyright notices are getting replaced rather than updated with correct
additions, this is a serious issue.
If this is typical for the attitude taken by the Linux Audio
community then my motivation to contribute to it will take
a serious blow.
I hope this issue gets sorted out to you satisfaction one way or another. I
would hate to see your efforts removed from the Free Software and linmux
audio realm.
As announced previously, there will be a fully reworked
release of Aeolus next year (on the occasion of its 10th
birthday). Apart from major improvements to the audio code
it will be completely OSC controlled. None of this will be
compatible with the forks of course, they'll find themselves
instantly obsolete. And I will make sure that this sort of
thing won't happen again, even if that means a more restrictive
license.
Ciao,
all the best,
drew
1:45 a.m.
On 2013-09-18 17:16, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of
their work, and
both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not approve of. Gavioli has
even added his 'copyright' to the sources of the libraries that Aeolus
depends on but which are not part of its source distribution. Apparently
the intention is to release incompatible versions of those as well.
If he's made changes to the libraries, he does own the copyright on his
changes -- but only his changes. Diff yours and his, and that's his work.
That doesn't affect your trunk, though, just his branch. And of course, if
he removed your copyright details, or they weren't in every file to begin
with, he's violated your license and therefore is infringing your
copyright. (I can't seem to find his code, so I have no idea.)
What he doesn't own is the "Aeolus" name, and I'd think a nice email
would
straighten that out right quick. (I'm surprised you never sent one to Red
Hat over their recently discontinued Aeolus Project.)
But being able to fork is one of the huge strengths of the free software
model, as well as a weakness when people don't follow basic etiquette like
naming the fork something else. There may still be issues (c.f. the ffmpeg
vs. avconv hissyfit where the Debian maintainer preferred avconv and
included a program still called "ffmpeg" in the package, which prints a
"this program is deprecated, use avconv instead" message every time you run
it, there is no proper ffmpeg available except through PPAs, and its
command line options are just different enough to make ffmpeg wrappers
puke) but when you cut to the chase, people being able to make their own
versions of other people's software is the entire point of free software.
And if they do something you like, you can use it too. It's not a bug, it's
a feature. Surely you see the value of, say, Yoshimi, which began as a fork
of zynaddsubfx? (I certainly do, not least because I'll never again have to
see religious propaganda in the readme.)
If he altered or removed your copyright notice, though, that's not part of the
free software model, that's simply copyright infringement.
And I will make sure that this sort of thing won't
happen again, even if
that means a more restrictive license.
Well, that's your right, of course, but ask the OSS guys how well that
worked out for them. If you change your license to a non-free one, one of
the forks might very well replace Aeolus in, for example, Debian and its
derivatives. I guess you could go proprietary, but then you're competing
with free and your name is not Apple.
As things stand, the version of Aeolus available to me as an Ubuntu user is
yours, not one of the forks as far as I can tell. I suspect the same is
true of other Linux audio friendly distributions. Free software is
(normally) a meritocracy. What would make a distro pick theirs over yours?
What direction are these other guys taking their forks in that bothers you,
anyway? I mean, it seems to me that they're probably making a built-in
instrument for use in their own software (like LMMS' embedded version of
Zyn), not a viable competitor. If their code is sloppy or buggy or limited
to one use case, no one's going to pay them much attention regardless. I'd
have never known they existed if you hadn't mentioned them, and as I said
above, I can't find their code.
This may even all be a misunderstanding, as I found a bug report on the
Musescore bug tracker from a year ago in which someone posted a link to
your old skynet.be page with Aeolus 0.6.6 as the latest version, which made
me think you'd let it languish till I thought to type "dpkg -l aeolus". If
what they're doing is a fork of 0.6.6, I'd say that's the most likely
situation, which would also explain why they didn't reach out to you --
especially if you don't get mail on your skynet.be email address anymore.
Rob
9:54 a.m.
On 2013-09-18 17:16, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Neither of them even had the decency to let me know of their work, and
both are taking Aeolus in a direction I do not approve of. Gavioli has
even added his 'copyright' to the sources of the libraries that Aeolus
depends on but which are not part of its source distribution. Apparently
the intention is to release incompatible versions of those as well.
Sounds like he is Italian. Why not organise to drop by and discuss the
issues with him in person? At least give him a call and see if you can
come to a mutual agreement about the functionality he is building and the
direction he has chosen?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
2:48 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Rob Kudla wrote:
This may even all be a misunderstanding, as I found a
bug report on the
Musescore bug tracker from a year ago in which someone posted a link to
your old skynet.be page
I don't buy that. I post at least once a week on LAU or LAD, everybody
who reads those list knows my email address and where to find my website.
If the musescore people or Gavioli don't know those, they are the ones
out of touch with the community. As it appears, their main interest is
Windows.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
4:37 p.m.
I don't know, Fons.
There's an entire "modular DAW" called ayyi that is a fork of ardour's
codebase. The author has never spoken to me once (at least not with an
acknowledgement of what s/he was up to). Whoever is doing is is still
active (recent releases on September 2nd). They distribute the ardour
libraries as part of their source tree. They clearly want to produce
something that operates in the same space as Ardour, although they have
changed the name and have a very different architectural concept in mind
(which over time seems to be converging back towards Ardour's own ...
quelle surprise!)
I'm not wild about it, but it is also somewhat in line with my original
goals when I started writing Ardour - nobody in the open source world knew
how to write a DAW (*) and an example would be handy.
--p
(*) some would argue that this situation is unchanged
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 07:44:58PM -0400, Rob Kudla
wrote:
This may even all be a misunderstanding, as I
found a bug report on the
Musescore bug tracker from a year ago in which someone posted a link to
your old skynet.be page
I don't buy that. I post at least once a week on LAU or LAD, everybody
who reads those list knows my email address and where to find my website.
If the musescore people or Gavioli don't know those, they are the ones
out of touch with the community. As it appears, their main interest is
Windows.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11:43 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37:28AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
[...]
There's an entire "modular DAW" called ayyi that is a fork of ardour's
codebase. The author has never spoken to me once (at least not with an
acknowledgement of what s/he was up to). Whoever is doing is is still
active (recent releases on September 2nd). They distribute the ardour
libraries as part of their source tree. They clearly want to produce
something that operates in the same space as Ardour, although they have
changed the name and have a very different architectural concept in mind
[...]
Hi Paul
I am the main Ayyi Project developer.
I sincerely hope that the use of your code hasn't caused any offence.
The project is not intended to be competitive with Ardour and is likely
to remain merely a proof-of-concept. If I you have any objections, please
let me know as I would be very keen to accommodate you. For example if you
dislike the use of the name "ardourd", I will change that.
Perhaps an academic distinction but I prefer to think of the current
Ayyi Project server as a libardour application rather than being a
fork. There are no changes other than to facilitate IPC, and as libardour
is not packaged separately including it in the Ayyi tree is the only option.
We have had conversations on LAD and IRC but we just have very different
ideas about what a DAW should be. I have a great deal of respect for
Ardour and all the great work you and others have done and ideally I would
very much like to contribute, something that a more modular approach would
help with. Who knows one day I may write a re-usable component that Ardour
can use. A lot of my recent work has gone into libwaveform
https://github.com/ayyi/libwaveform
which is a small step for me in the direction of re-usable code.
But to get the conversation back to Fons original topic, I think
that many coders find talking unproductive and prefer to let their
code do the talking. Forking is a natural and healthy part of
that. Github has the right idea, in encouraging forking as part
of the process of contributing to the original codebase.
Regards
--
Tim
11:55 p.m.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Tim Orford <tim(a)orford.org> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:37:28AM -0400, Paul Davis
wrote:
Not at all!
[...]
There's an entire "modular DAW" called ayyi that is a fork of ardour's
codebase. The author has never spoken to me once (at least not with an
acknowledgement of what s/he was up to). Whoever is doing is is still
active (recent releases on September 2nd). They distribute the ardour
libraries as part of their source tree. They clearly want to produce
something that operates in the same space as Ardour, although they have
changed the name and have a very different architectural concept in mind
[...]
Hi Paul
I am the main Ayyi Project developer.
I sincerely hope that the use of your code hasn't caused any offence.
The project is not intended to be competitive with
Ardour and is likely
to remain merely a proof-of-concept. If I you have any objections, please
let me know as I would be very keen to accommodate you. For example if you
dislike the use of the name "ardourd", I will change that.
No issues here.
We have had conversations on LAD and IRC but we just
have very different
ideas about what a DAW should be. I have a great deal of respect for
Ardour and all the great work you and others have done and ideally I would
very much like to contribute, something that a more modular approach would
help with.
Good luck with that! Mr Liles adn the Non project might appreciate your
efforts more directly though :)
My apologies for forgetting that we had, in fact spoken about this stuff.
--p
20 Sep
20 Sep
3:01 a.m.
On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 15:36 +0100, James Morris wrote to LAD:
On 18/09/13 Fons Adriaensen
<fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
...
I wonder that there is such a long discussion on two mailing lists, but
seemingly the coder/coders never were contacted. Assumed "Maurizio M.
Gavioli" or anybody else should do something wrong, then why not simply
contact him/them and ask him/them not to continue to do something wrong?
Perhaps this does help:
https://github.com/mgavioli/oscAeolus/issues/1
IMO Maurizio M. Gavioli and Fons should talk to each other.
Regards,
Ralf
If this is typical for the attitude taken by the
Linux Audio
community then my motivation to contribute to it will take
a serious blow.
Well you've been a member of the Linux Audio community as long as
anyone, you should know if this is the typical attitude taken by the
"Community"...
3878
days inactive
3880
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
18 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
bjb-linux-audio-user＠deus.net -
drew Roberts -
Fons Adriaensen -
Guido Aulisi -
Hartmut Noack -
hermann meyer -
J. Liles -
Josh Lawrence -
Julien Claassen -
Monty Montgomery -
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Davis -
Rafael Vega -
Ralf Mardorf -
Rob Kudla -
Tim Orford