[ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Wed Feb 8 09:37:25 PST 2006

> This is what I feared. My concern is that it would not attract as many
> contributors to the code as it would if it was a simple GPL
> project. This also hinders the use of all the wonderful code out there

oh, like the huge numbers of people that have poured into the project
over the last 6 years? 

> under the GPL license, since all code shipped with ardour will have to
> be compatible with this dual license scheme. This will hinder ardour
> making use of powerful code already available under the GPL.

read up on mySQL. dual licensing does not have this effect. it might
have consequences for the *recipient* of the non-GPL'ed license, it has
no consequences for those who continue to use the software under the
terms of the GPL.

> Code, where you are required to give away your copyright, is a very
> dangerous affair, in my opinion and I think it will scare away many
> future contributors, as is happening with current projects released in
> the same manner, such as asterisk.

there's no evidence of any large pool of developers waiting to be
discovered. Ardour has been on the cover of Linux Journal, Computer
Music Journal, has been featured in articles in Mix, Sound on Sound,
Electronic Musician, has won the LJ "Project of the Year" award and the
clearly dominant leader in its niche (audio multitrack recording, mixing
and editing). what amazing change do you think is going to bring forth
the hordes of eager coders and documentation writers?

> I have nothing against commercial involvement, but I fear that this
> will involve a dual license scheme. 

   [ ... etc. .... ]

It is going to take a lot of will to avoid being utterly and deeply rude
to you. 

Who are you to show up, continually talking about "new developers" when
it is I and a just handful of other people have put years of work into
this software? What do you know about the discussions I have had with
companies on and off over the last 3 years in which I have adamantly
refused to move 1mm from Ardour being GPL'ed software? You don't know
anything about the negotiations I've been in with multiple companies for
the last month, in which the GPL status of Ardour has been a central
focal point (negotiations that actually keep me awake at night with fear
and doubt). You can blather on about "i value freedom" ... while you do
so, i keep writing this software, keep it licensed under the GPL and
never intend to change that. it is possible, yes, that at some point in
the future we may offer dual licensing to some organizations that are
willing to pay a lot of money for the priviledge of escaping their GPL
obligations *and* are willing to face the consequences that result with
respect to third party GPL'ed libraries. when and if we do that, it will
be developers of Ardour who play a role in that decision, as well as
organizations that make working on Ardour possible, not passive
onlookers and certainly not end users? Bothered by that? Go ahead and
fork. I'm sure there are hundreds of developers who join your effort.


More information about the Ardour-Dev mailing list