linuxaudio.org

RickTaylor@Speakeasy.Net wrote:

quoted text
> 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:

quoted text
> }

> }  "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.
>  It's actually sort of funny to watch all of the obvious manipulations and

quoted text
> 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.

So, I'm glad you recognize that ...
> }  I realize the Lego analogy is a little broken.

quoted text
> }

> }  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.
>  To me... the variety of choices available on linux is much more important than

quoted text
> 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.
> }  the whole thing tick and even worth using at all (ignoring the wonderful

quoted text
> }  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?
> }  shareware developers, frankly I think they'd have a better time writing

quoted text
> }  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.
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 :)
Cheers,

Chris