On Sunday 19 December 2004 08:16 am, Marek Peteraj wrote:
> 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.
>
> I know. :)
I know :}
> > 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.
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?
> 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.
>
> > {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.
Linux is the entity doing the sales, no?
--
www.RTaylor-Design.Com
