On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 01:06:38PM -0400, Chris Pickett wrote: > RickTaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >On 12-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote: > >} 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. > You did say, "linux audio... copyrighted stuff to > pretty much excluded," and later, "Much of that software is > copyrighted," so I don't think that was particularly unfair. > >} 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? > > I wasn't aware that Jack not operating with all programs was a > competitive thing, and involved money or patents or nasty licensing at > all ... I thought it was because other apps simply hadn't caught up yet. > I guess I'll have to read about it a bit. My understanding is that apps need to follow a certain model (call-back base processing vs. block processing, iiuc) in order to function properly within the jack graph to meet it's low-latency and synchornous execution requirements. There were some pre-existing apps that fit this model and some that didn't. The authors of some of those that didn't fit rewrote their apps or wrote new ones. Some other authors either didn't care about jack's goals or disagreed with them and so their apps aren't jackable. I don't think there are any behind the scenes political maneuvers going on to keep certain apps out of the jack family. -Eric Rz.
