-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 carmen escribió: Indeed, I couldn't see it either... Will have to upload it to the home Windows® PC...

--- carmen <_(a)whats-your.name> wrote: :) It works fine with my LFS system and Firefox MPlayer plug-in. Those videos are amazing! Try to find a way to watch 'em! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Gian Paolo Mureddu wrote: I've transcoded the video using VideoLAN Client, and have uploaded it to FileFactory. Hopefully this will give everyone a chance to see it in action. http://www.filefactory.com/file/7dc303/ later, Steve

--- Drucer Ninetynine <drucer99(a)yahoo.com> wrote: http://www.lionstracs.com/site/index.php?option=content&task=view&i… ..I converted the "sounds.wmv" file to "sounds.mpeg" with MPlayer's mencoder. Should be playable with just about any player now. This video demonstrates sounds. You can get it here: http://www.filefactory.com/file/238e07/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Gian Paolo Mureddu wrote: I have x86_64 also. You need to install the 32bit binary version of mplayer as well as the w32codecs. I am using 64 bit mode linux. Jeremiah

--- Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks for that clarification - I have no idea, but please somebody tell if you have more information. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 12:45 -0700, Drucer Ninetynine wrote: http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html Not open source. But let's not start that discussion again - check the archives to see everyone's differing opinions from the last time. -- Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:53 -0400, Lee Revell wrote: I suppose it depends on which definition you use. I prefer this one: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php So according to your definition it is, according to mine it isn't. No disagreement. -- Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E

On Thu August 24 2006 15:53, Lee Revell wrote: 1. Linuxsampler is not "open source" any more than Microsoft's "shared source" initiative releases "open source" software. The term "open source" is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative, and as regards software licenses, it may only be used to refer to licenses conforming to the Open Source Definition created by OSI. Linuxsampler doesn't conform, because of section 6 in the OSD: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." So if they are calling themselves open source (note: I don't think they are) then they would be violating the trademark of Eric Raymond and his buddies. On the other hand, I have no idea whether the OSI has gone after violators of its trademark the way the FSF has gone after GPL violations on software to which it holds the copyright. Trademarks can be diluted, as you just did ever-so-slightly with your assertion above. 2. The GNU GPL itself, meaning the actual text of the license, is not in the public domain. While Linuxsampler is probably not itself violating the GPL (assuming they either wrote all their own code or got all contributors to sign off on the license change.... if it's your code, even RMS will say you can license it however you want), they are, to all appearances, violating the FSF's copyright on the text of the GPL itself. I just grabbed a copy of their source and the COPYING file is an untouched copy of the GPL, which is fine, but then in their README they just have an additional sentence saying it may not be used commercially. If the README can't be considered part of the license, then Linuxsampler is being distributed under the GPL no matter what their intent. (See also: SCO.) On the other hand, if the README *can* be considered part of the GPL, it sure looks like they're violating the FSF's terms of use on the GPL (as opposed to the terms of the GPL): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL "You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar)." Note that the above isn't any sort of official license to the GPL: officially, the only way to use the GPL as your program's license is verbatim without any additional restrictions, though you can make exceptions that give the licensees additional freedoms. I read the above FAQ entry as a "we won't sue you if....." sort of thing. I know this has been discussed on the list previously, but I searched the archive for mentions of these two specific issues and there were none. I have an actual lawyer for when my understanding of licenses like this will impact my business. I don't care about Linuxsampler enough to spend the money and ask him about this, especially when someone's bound to bump into Larry Lessig or someone someday and ask him for free, but I feel pretty confident about what I've said. Confident enough that if I were working on a Linux-based hardware DAW to sell commercially, I would probably take my chances and just use Linuxsampler. I'd be more afraid of the mysterious gag-order-inducing entity that started all of this than of the Linuxsampler guys. If it was, as some people have supposed, a patent infringement situation, Linuxsampler can't be redistributed under the GPL by anyone knowing about the patent in the first place, regardless of any attempts to add additional restrictions. Rob

As much as I agree with you Lee on this, which may be a rare occasion between us, personally as you mentioned before, this entire debate was beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten to death MANY times before, including at least once in recent history on either this list or the LAD list, it might be better to just end it here. Seablade

And the spirit of the discussion is the same, are they violating the semantical issues of these things, or is does their intent make up for that. Personally I don't care worth a lick for semantics, and I consider the fact that people do argue over this useless. I also think the fact that anyone has trademarked Open Source ridiculous. That is a sign that our society has gotten much to uptight about many things. Seablade

Feel free, I made my request, people can feel free to ignore it as is there right. And that is my point, the fact something like this CAN be trademarked, or would need to be is completely a sign something is wrong, and people have gotten to ridiculously uptight about things. Seablade

On Friday 25 August 2006 01:04, Rob wrote: Speaking of Eric Raymond: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2761311745.html I think this stuff is well worth thinking about. And appropriate for Linux Audio USERS list. Is it possible for Linux, Windoze, and Apple folks to "just get along" and make pretty tunes? I know that if there existed Linux distribution(s) that handled all formats, my wife would switch, and a half dozen musicians and production pro's I know would give it a try. Me, I dream of a Linux install that works out of the box. And I don't mind paying the fees, if reasonable, for a stable system. But I should really stay out of the whole thing; all I really want to do is play alto sax. I'm getting tired of being the group sys op and sound man. Marv

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:41 -0400, Rob wrote: Pemmican? Is that Canadian for "beef jerky"? ;-)

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 12:31 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: not true. the "product" responsible was not this one.

On Thursday 24 August 2006 21:06, Paul Davis was like: Thanks for being the only person who actually answered the question. Phew! -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim We are the people We've been waiting for.