On 12-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
} > On 11-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} > } Sorry for the delay responding. Since Thursday, have seen Ibrahim
} > } Ferrer, Dianne Reeves, Carol Welsman, Peter Cincotti, Oliver Jones, and
} > } Oscar Peterson at the Montreal Jazz Festival. CW was okay, the rest
} > } were amazing!
} >
} > I'm not really a fan of modern-day jazz {prefering noise, electronic
} > concrete, spacey stuff {TD, Jarre, etc..}, experimental stuff, and rock
} > a bit of classical} I really prefer *old* school jazz. I will not listen to
} > fusion.} Most of those people elude me.
}
} Ibrahim Ferrer is a singer as part of the (defunct?) Buena Vista Social
} Club and they were playing cuban jazz. Dianne Reeves sings and her
} biggest inspiration is Sarah Vaughan. Peter Cincotti is this
} 20-year-old prodigy who sings and plays songs by the old crooners, and
} writes some new things in an old style as well. Oliver Jones and Oscar
} Peterson are two of Canada's finest and oldest jazz pianists, and it was
} pure bliss when they brought two pianos on stage for two final encores.
} Definitely old school! (we also saw Gary Burton (vibraphone) and
} Chick Corea (piano), but that was prior to Thursday)
Peterson and Corea {And Vaughan} I'm familiar with. Corea falls into the
category of fusion {my opinion} most of the time. By old school I mean anything
pre '7o or so... Since then I think jazz has been better represented by other
genres. In the '6os jazz still offered something interesting in and of itself.
} > This would be the one major problem I have with "open source" and to some
} > extent with the GPL. In practice it seems to me that, more often than not,
} > one doesn't really have a choice.
} >
} > An example that's pretty easy would be linux audio... copyrighted stuff
} > to pretty much excluded. If that's the case... I don't see any future at
} > for this movement. Folk that get excluded are going to walk away... there's
} > going to be all sorts of {more} bad blood and I, frankly, just don't see it
} > going anywhere. This whole thing depends on much cooperation. There needs
} > to be a way to reconcile things... I think shareware fits that need
} >
} > {Exclusionary anything just sucks.}
} >
} > To me... the "Linux Audio Developers" are the couple thousand{s} or so
} > that have contributed to this since the beginning. Much of that software is
} > copyrighted. I think those folk deserve to be recognized and included and
} > should be able to charge for their stuff if that's the way they choose to
} > live their life.
}
} Just a clarification: everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly
} released into the public domain. That's why these licenses work.
I'm familiar with copyrights. :} Artists have been using them since, maybe,
before programmers.
} The truncated paragraph said:
}
} "However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor
} lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease
} interoperability between programs and flexibility in the system. They
} allow for only one box per program, and furthermore make one subscribe
} to their whole subsystem of boxes to get something usable. It's like
} when Lego started making wall pieces instead of just individual blocks
} to build them."
You mean like the idea that Jack works with only a select set of programs?
It's actually sort of funny to watch all of the obvious manipulations and
games that get played in the commercial arena. {It would be funnier if my
wallet didn't feel the effects} It would genuinely suck to see that sort of
thing get started in linux. Linux has always been about as open as it's
possible to get... that's why it's an interesting system and why, I think, so
many folk have been drawn too it.
} I realize the Lego analogy is a little broken.
}
} Anyway, at the end of the day, if Linux Audio started to need non-free
} stuff to be good, I'd just buy a Mac. For me, the core of what makes
Linux has always included a large number of non-free programs. If you're
obsessive like I am and run around checking out every available program that
a given platform has to offer... Linux can include a very large number of
traditionally copyrighted and commercial programs. I think linux needs to
include a number of large commercial offerings like those solutions provided by
Oracle and IBM. {Money... and all of the benefits that might be derived from
it.}
To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important than
the open source thing... The copyleft idea strikes me as a really usable and
actually somewhat noble alternative to a traditional corporate structure... The
idea of an entirely open source strikes me as a bit dillettante and maybe a bit
too high minded and idealistic to be practical. It's simply too open to
politics, cliquishness and similar sorts of abuse {even racism... see Elvis} to
be practical. {:} 'Course I sometimes feel this way about the internet itself.
I'm probably wrong in those feelings. I don't think I am in my feelings about
"open source".}
} the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful
} unix-y benefits that Macs now have too) is that it's free. I think the
} reaction, "Everyone else is releasing free stuff, you can bloody well
} release free stuff too!" isn't entirely unjustified. As for music
I think it's totally unjustified and that it's that very attitude that is at
the heart of the problem I described above.
} shareware developers, frankly I think they'd have a better time writing
} for OS X anyway, as a real shareware community actually exists.
Then they should just go away?
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 12-Jul-2004
Time: 18:51:34
This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------
