-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [LAD] OpenOctaveMidi2 (OOM2) beta release
From: Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: LAU Mail List <linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Audio
Developers <Linux-audio-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/27/2011 11:26 AM
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Paul Davis wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:39 AM, alex stone wrote:
Deep in the basement of the OpenOctaveProject, the team have been
working hard, to bring OpenOctaveMidi into the modern age. From the
new interface, to the workflow features, OOM2 is the result of a great
deal of hard work, and thought. In our Project journey towards a great
Linux Audio pipeline, OOM2 represents the next important step.
I think it would be a little more respectful if you notified this
crowd precisely which *existing* codebase you "put a blowtorch to". i
already know the answer, but i think it would better to hear it from
you guys. altering the indentation and global search-and-replace of
the project name does not constitute much of a blowtorch.
Hi Paul,
Let me shed some light from the opposite side.
I was one of the developers of the "existing codebase" [1]. Actually,
I joined the project formally about 3 months ago and I believe I made
a significant contribution in porting it to Qt4. The way I joined to
the project was traditional: sent a couple useful patches so that
people can get to know me, and after a couple rounds I got commit
rights. From my experience with open source projects, this is the way
things evolve. (I sent patches to ardour too in the past, you folks
have been friendly all the time. I am pretty sure same thing would
have happened if I contributed more frequently.)
OOM folks took a different approach. Originally, we granted them an
SVN branch and we were working under the same umbrella. They put
really hard work in their branch, and I admired most of what they did.
The plan was to merge their new features into the trunk. So we asked
for patches for individual features. This never came from them.
Instead they wanted us to grab everything (or a subset) as is. Our
team did not have the resources to take the diff of each individual
file to filter out each separate feature, and we simply didn't want to
accept *everything* as is. Thus, we proposed them to fork. This is
purely due to differences in the workflow and creativity.
Thanks for the clarification.
That said, I believe the original codebase deserved a little more
credit than what is there in the bottom corner of the AUTHORS file.
Moreover, when they forked off, they _kindly_ asked us to not backport
some of the changes they made (mostly appearance related). While I do
not have any intention of using their look, I found this a little odd.
You are borrowing tens of thousands of lines of code from a project,
don't give them credit in your project webpage, and tell them not to
use your little contribution in their original codebase. There is
something morally wrong here.
As for not using our look, you are free to the style sheet I created for
you but change the colors was all I was asking. You should communicate
these things directly to me instead of out here in the lions den :)
As for more attribution, what would you like. I have no issues with
giving you props where you need it. So what do you need?
You know there seems to be this idea that we are coming out there to
destroy someones project. You said it yourself that we code fast and
hard. The reason for this is that we simply need the software. When we
were dealing with Rosegarden Micheal McIntyre could not stop swearing at
us so we forked. He felt we were invading and told us he refused to let
us take over. Oh well :)
You know I never wanted to develop audio software, I have much bigger
fish to fry. It is just my wife's pipeline is so big that the current
software was caving in. I tried to get help from the coders, but there
is never much of that to go around. So I took matters into my own hands.
We are not like Ardour asking for money all the time. We are doing this
to write music. If people (Chris Cannam) and others feel they need more
attribution, then that part is really easy to fix.
I suspect there is much more to this puzzle than attribution. I suspect
we rocked the boat just a bit too much and too fast.
Well..... it is only going to get worse if that is the case. I need much
more to finish my project with my wife. We have very big plans. This
software is such a little part of our lives, but we do need it.
Anyhow. I have been up for days coding and need some sleep.
I hope you all enjoy our features. After all they are much better than
anything in Linux for orchestral scoring. We really outdid ourselves! :)
Enjoy!
Anyhow, I wish them good luck with their project.
Best,
Orcan
[1] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2010-December/075007.html
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Christopher Cherrett
ccherrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.openoctave.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
