> On Monday 26 Feb 2007 23:01, Bengt Gördén wrote: >> måndag 26 februari 2007 23:33 skrev Chris Cannam: >> > I do instantly take a dislike to projects that start up saying >> > their ambition is to clone some commercial app directly for Linux. >> > But that's another argument (that I seem to remember having on LAD >> > once before, and will have again in the pub with anyone, any day). >> >> Well you're on. I've got no problem discussing that topic. It's not >> commercial app that is the problem. It's the closed source that is. > > Yes, I should have said closed source or proprietary. Not that it makes > much difference in this context, as all the commercial audio apps are > proprietary and there are few proprietary non-commercial audio apps > that are substantial enough to inspire projects to clone them. > > It's not that I wouldn't prefer they were free software; it's that > setting out to clone an existing program, especially in the field of > art or entertainment, is a misapplication of your own creative energy. > > Here's the earlier flam^H^H^H^Hargument. I don't have much to add. > http://www.music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2006-February/014743.html > > It's really a five pints in the pub discussion. I couldn't agree more. The strength, and the exciting nature of free software as I see it, is that it can do things closed source software can't, or won't do - due to the rules of ownership or commercial pressure. The problem is that the drive to _use_ free software can come just for cost or political reasons, rather than simply finding an application that does the job better - and these people want to see equivalents of things they'd otherwise have to pay for. I suppose a big problem is the OS divide - if there was only one, users would be able to mix and match free or costly apps easier. Everyone talks about choice, but it's restricted either way currently. cheers, dave
