Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long)

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: A list for linux audio users <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 7:49 pm

On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 20:47 +0200, Nick Copeland wrote:

please send me a link to the documentation that leads you to believe
there is a requirement to pay a licensing fee or more in order to use
AAF, or liability issues, etc.

the entire SDK for AAF is downloadable from SourceForge. the AAF FAQ
states:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4. What are the licensing terms for the AAF SDK?

The AAF SDK is licensed under a perpetual, royalty-free license. Users
are allowed to download source code, make derivative works, include
these works in their products and charge for these works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

the FAQ continues:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4.9. If I can get the AAF SDK free, why do I need to join the AAF
Association?

You should join the AAF Association to get support for the SDK and to
participate in the development of future capabilities of AAF. AAF is
fundamentally a shared industry initiative, built out of the
contributions of its members. No one is required to join; the
association is open to everyone. Members share benefits such as access
to the support network and participation in developer conferences and
the technical committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

the SDK license is somewhat similar to the initial Mozilla public
license, in that if you distribute a modified version of the SDK you
have to send your changes back in to the AAF Association. otherwise,
there is no obligation to interact with the AAF Association at all.

at one time, the SDK included libs from MS for "structured
storage" (think filesystem-inside-a-file) but the SDK now has the option
to build using GNU equivalents (GSF or something like that).

in 2000, the AAF presented a entire roadmap for their planned adoption
of an open source strategy. the PDF of the slides is easily available:

http://www.aafassociation.org/passed_events/2000-11-DevCon_SanteFe/opens...

so i am totally lost and confused by your suggestions.

> Strangely enough, your promotion of this consortium amost seemed targetted

sigh. i've spent 5 years struggling with inter-operability issues with
DAWs, to no particular avail. the issues are large, and complex, and to
date nobody appears to have done a particularly outstanding job of it. i
don't believe that the right answer is to start another "standards"
definition. if i was convinced that using AAF required licensing fees,
or that the people who define the standard would pay no attention to
organizations or individuals outside the AAF, then i would probably
avoid using it, and would certainly not "promote" it here.

--p

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), David Baron, (Wed Jun 6, 3:16 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Adam Sampson, (Thu Jun 7, 1:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Wed Jun 6, 3:31 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Nick Copeland, (Wed Jun 6, 4:22 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Wed Jun 6, 5:06 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Rob, (Wed Jun 6, 7:25 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), David Baron, (Thu Jun 7, 12:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Thu Jun 7, 1:51 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Nick Copeland, (Thu Jun 7, 2:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Thu Jun 7, 6:06 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Nick Copeland, (Thu Jun 7, 8:58 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), David Baron, (Sat Jun 9, 7:40 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Thu Jun 7, 10:08 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Julien Claassen, (Thu Jun 7, 9:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Nick Copeland, (Wed Jun 6, 6:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Wed Jun 6, 7:49 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), David Baron, (Thu Jun 7, 12:47 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Marc-Olivier Barre, (Thu Jun 7, 12:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), David Baron, (Wed Jun 6, 4:48 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), David Baron, (Wed Jun 6, 4:15 pm)
Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long), Paul Davis, (Wed Jun 6, 4:20 pm)