> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Pickett [mailto:chris.pickett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 05:06 PM > To: 'A list for linux audio users' > Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux > > 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. Don't get too serious about it... I just tossed that out as an example. It's probably a bad one. It "is" simply for the sake of discussion. I'm not sugggesting that there's anything evil afoot. Why do other programs need to "catch up" with a program that's designed to enable them? > > } 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.} > > I think those kind of things can help corporations who have more money > than time to throw at a problem, but am unclear as to the benefit that > the ordinary user derives from them, although it probably exists. :} Trickle down software economics. In this case I think it has some basis in fact: "Sgi has a fairly large corporate structure in place... they devlop software. They have the means to make software that is "Sgi-like" {for lack of a better word.} If they give you their software {which is a unique product of their capabilities, market and experiences.} and you give them yours in return... everyone benefits." You use their tools to make a buck... you benefit. You both benefit at different levels. > > 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".} > > To my knowledge, my system is entirely open source, with the exception > of acroread and flash, and it runs well. On the desktop, I think > paid-for corporate involvement can help with unification efforts, > packaging, and hardware support issues, but that it's better if the > changes are freed eventually. I'm thinking that both flash and pdf are pretty nice additions to linux. I don't think the changes can help but be "freed" occasionally. {Regardless of license.} Maybe we need to specify what we mean by "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. > > I give away free time to F/OSS, and have made less-than-profitable > career choices (i.e. grad school) so that I could hack on free software, > why should I be expected to receive with open arms people who want to > build upon this free base and not give back, let alone _pay_ for it? Because you made that choice? > > } 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? > > I think corporations are the only ones really willing to pay for > individual applications on Linux. I'm personally not shelling out for > shareware when I can read, test, and contribute to free software. Time > is money, I guess, and that's how I'd like to pay, even if it costs me > more after the conversion (which indicates "libre" is more important > than "gratis" to me). I think other people feel the same way. I had the impression they have nothing to do with each other > So, yes, from a business perspective, shareware developers for Linux > should go away and target OS X instead. From an ethical perspective, as > long as I'm not forced to use it and there always exist alternatives, I > guess I don't mind. I start to mind when everybody just uses the > non-free stuff and this results in the death of otherwise good free > projects. > > Like Tim just said, I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree, > since I'm not likely to convince you that 100% free is a good and > realistic thing, and you're not likely to convince me otherwise (I know > _I'm_ starting to repeat myself). I hope at least we can see a little > where the other is coming from now :) :} Tim's message was first in the queue. I answered this there.
