[ardour-dev] ardour-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5
Rick
ricknance at gmail.com
Wed Feb 8 12:59:36 PST 2006
Perfect timing this discussion.
I don't actually know anything about dual licensing, but it sounds,
from this discussion, that it might not be the absolute best of all
possible worlds (which is free shelter, unlimited pizzas, and ipods
for all) but it's pretty good/fair.
Does this mean that Ardour code as GPL would more-or-less "freeze" at
some point, and that the code as written would move over into
commercial hands AND continue to be usable in the open source
environment? Then the ¢ompany develops it its own way with all the
copyrights that commerce requires, and the opensource version goes
(forks) off on it's own way. (presumably without the main coders that
organized it in the first place)
Rick
On 2/8/06, ardour-dev-request at lists.ardour.org
<ardour-dev-request at lists.ardour.org> wrote:
> Send ardour-dev mailing list submissions to
> ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ardour-dev-request at lists.ardour.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ardour-dev-owner at lists.ardour.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ardour-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Paul Davis)
> 2. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Stefan de Konink)
> 3. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Esben Stien)
> 4. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Per Sigmond)
> 5. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Esben Stien)
> 6. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Paul Davis)
> 7. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Joe Hartley)
> 8. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Derek Chen-Becker)
> 9. Re: problems with SSE code for x86_64 (Geoff Beasley)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:47:01 -0500
> From: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: Esben Stien <b0ef at esben-stien.name>
> Cc: Jesse Chappell <jesse at essej.net>, ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <1139402821.4197.9.camel at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 05:23 +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
> > Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> writes:
> >
> > > its been a condition of accepting code in ardour's codebase that its
> > > author transfers copyright to me
> >
> > I didn't know this was the current policy; a policy which I think is
> > very bad.
> >
> > Why is the policy like this?
> >
> > I know certain GNU projects do it this way, because they want to
> > defend the copyright in court; is this your primary concern and
> > intention?
>
> 1) I don't have to defend this policy to anyone except people who have
> contributed or may in the future contribute code.
>
> 2) Court is one possible venue for a defense of the copyright, yes.
>
> 3) If we ever have a reason to want to allow dual licensing in the
> future (e.g. mySQL, SleepyCat DB, QT), that process will be
> a lot easier if the copyright already assigned to a single
> person.
>
> 4) In the near future, I will be making a very significant announcement
> about commercial involvement with Ardour. It has been a very
> big plus for organizations that the copyright situation is simple.
> Not a huge reason to care? These are organizations that actually
> want to put money on the table to move Ardour into the professional
> leagues to which it aspires.
>
> --p
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:25:23 +0100 (CET)
> From: Stefan de Konink <skinkie at xs4all.nl>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> Cc: ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <20060208142116.K59379-100000 at xs2.xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Paul Davis wrote:
>
> > 4) In the near future, I will be making a very significant announcement
> > about commercial involvement with Ardour.
>
> Whispers something about March 31 ;)
>
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:41:08 +0100
> From: Esben Stien <b0ef at esben-stien.name>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
> Cc: Jesse Chappell <jesse at essej.net>, ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <87y80lc0yz.fsf at esben-stien.name>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> writes:
>
> > allow dual licensing
>
> 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
> 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.
>
> The LGPL is only meant to be used for libraries and really should not
> be used as the license for an entire application, in my opinion and in
> the opinion of the Free Software Foundation.
>
> 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.
>
> > commercial involvement
>
> I have nothing against commercial involvement, but I fear that this
> will involve a dual license scheme.
>
> > big plus [..] that the copyright situation is simple.
>
> It's also the greatest danger if you suddenly state that newer code
> will be proprietary or that you will have a dual license scheme where
> you will be able to use ardour codebase under a proprietary license.
>
> Free software developers, in general, in my opinion, don't fancy the
> idea of their contributions being used in proprietary software.
>
> Please bear with me my concern.
>
> We should rather have ardour GPL'ed and infect it with as many
> copyrights as possible to make sure that the code stays free, in my
> opinion.
>
> You can also sign the copyright over to the FSF, something which you
> mentioned once you wanted to do. This will still hinder some
> contributors because of the extra effort in signing over the
> copyright, but you will rest assured that all future code added to the
> code base will remain free and that you can use all the functionality
> centric code in GPL libraries, which is where some of the power of
> free software lies.
>
> --
> Esben Stien is b0ef at e s a
> http://www. s t n m
> irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
> [sip|iax]: e e
> jid:b0ef@ n n
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:40:18 +0100 (CET)
> From: "Per Sigmond" <per at sigmond.no>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: "Esben Stien" <b0ef at esben-stien.name>
> Cc: Jesse Chappell <jesse at essej.net>, ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID:
> <24224.194.237.142.10.1139413218.squirrel at webmail1.b-one.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> > "Esben Stien" <b0ef at esben-stien.name> writes:
> >
> >> allow dual licensing
> >
> > 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.
>
> I contribute because I want an open source application that works. Also,
> most contributions are too small (compared to the total) that a copyright
> claim would be reasonable. It's nice to be listed as contributor though
> :-)
>
> > This also hinders the use of all the wonderful code out there
> > 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.
>
> Jack and ladspa fixes most of this.
>
> > Free software developers, in general, in my opinion, don't fancy the
> > idea of their contributions being used in proprietary software.
>
> Dual license is not the same as proprietary. People will earn (or save) a
> lot of money using ardour even if it is single GPL. It's the openness that
> matters. We would still have that with dual license (if it ever comes to
> that, I find it unlikely).
>
> It is more dangerous to ardour if commercially motivated actors are scared
> away. Ardour also needs commercial actors if it is to hit (closer to)
> mainstream. If it does, it will benefit all of us.
>
> Best regards,
> Per.
> --
> Per Sigmond
> http://www.sigmond.no/per/
> +47-90721913
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:41:08 +0100
> From: Esben Stien <b0ef at esben-stien.name>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: "Per Sigmond" <per at sigmond.no>
> Cc: Jesse Chappell <jesse at essej.net>, ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <87u0b9ae2j.fsf at esben-stien.name>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> "Per Sigmond" <per at sigmond.no> writes:
>
> > I contribute because I want an open source application that works.
>
> This model don't serve us, in my opinion. By choosing this model, you
> refuse to cooperate with f.ex a GPL project. This means that a GPL
> project cannot be present as a critical module for a functioning
> ardour.
>
> > most contributions are too small
>
> There is a chance that this will change.
>
> > Jack and ladspa fixes most of this.
>
> It's great that we already agree that it hurts us, but ardour cannot
> depend on a gpl module to function, so we cannot choose an existing
> free software module that would otherwise fit us perfect.
>
> > Dual license is not the same as proprietary.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > People will earn (or save) a lot of money using ardour
>
> That is not my primary concern as it's the freedom I value.
>
> Just look at asterisk or the numerous other projects that choose to go
> this path. People are scared away by the process of signing off their
> copyright. Projects like these are willing to use a less capable
> library or develop their own, instead of using existing and more
> capable GPL libraries.
>
> > It is more dangerous to ardour if commercially motivated actors are
> > scared away.
>
> You mean like not being allowed to use the ardour code base in
> proprietary software?. If commercial actors can't see the economic
> potential in the free software model, then they are in the wrong
> business, in my opinion.
>
> > Ardour also needs commercial actors if it is to hit (closer to)
> > mainstream. If it does, it will benefit all of us.
>
> Things will definitely go faster if Paul and others can work full time
> on their dream child, but I won't trade that for the hassle of dual
> licensing.
>
> I will be quiet about this subject as we're very off topic now, but I
> hope this policy will be thoroughly thought through in the best
> interest of the community surrounding it.
>
> --
> Esben Stien is b0ef at e s a
> http://www. s t n m
> irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
> [sip|iax]: e e
> jid:b0ef@ n n
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:37:25 -0500
> From: Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: Esben Stien <b0ef at esben-stien.name>
> Cc: Jesse Chappell <jesse at essej.net>, ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <1139420245.4197.41.camel at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> > 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.
>
> --p
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:43:05 -0500
> From: Joe Hartley <jh at brainiac.com>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <20060208134305.4125af7e.jh at brainiac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:37:25 -0500
> Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
>
> > It is going to take a lot of will to avoid being utterly and deeply rude
> > to you.
>
> You did an excellent job!
>
> I've got my fingers crossed for something big happening for you and
> Ardour. I'm up to my eyeballs in mixing and overdubbing a friend's
> album currently, and I find that unlike back when I was working under
> M$, even the biggest problems are not a big deal.
>
> Example: after an overdub with a fiddle player who came up from NYC
> last weekend, I went to do a playback and ardour disappeared completely
> on me. No problem - I just stop jack and start it again in qjackctl (which
> also restarts Ardour), and there was everything just as I'd left it,
> including the last take. Under Windows, the OS would likely have crashed,
> and who knows if the take would have been there to be recovered.
>
> Good luck with the upcoming negotiations.
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh at brainiac.com
> Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:23:36 -0600
> From: Derek Chen-Becker <derek at chen-becker.org>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
> Cc: Jesse Chappell <jesse at essej.net>, ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <43EA5348.2030908 at chen-becker.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Wow. Talk about ungrateful. As a casual user of Ardour, and as a
> software developer myself, I see no problem with the possibility of
> dual-licensing, or of copyright assignment (as long as there is some
> form of attribution/acknowledgment for contributed work). If a dual
> license and copyright assignment allows Paul and others to continue work
> on such a fantastic project, so be it. If you can't handle that, fork it
> or do your own thing, no one's stopping you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Derek
>
> --
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Derek Chen-Becker |
> | http://chen-becker.org |
> | |
> | PGP key available on request or from public key servers |
> | Fngrprnt: 209A 77CA A4F9 E716 E20C 6348 B657 77EC 21A7 FB53 |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 07:41:07 +0000
> From: Geoff Beasley <songshop at bizmedia.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] problems with SSE code for x86_64
> To: ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> Message-ID: <200602090741.07147.songshop at bizmedia.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I just have to say that Paul Davis has no need to defend his position whatever
> it is, and whatever it will be.
>
> I'm priveliged to be allowed to use such a piece of quality engineering as
> Ardour. We all are.
>
> And knowing it's true value, will never use anything else.
>
> Notice I use the word value ?
>
> BTW when you find an open source food supplier and shelter provider let me
> know .. ...
>
> Hey, wonder if Shell is thinking of going open-source anytime soon ??
>
> :)
>
> best,
>
> g.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ardour-dev mailing list
> ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
> http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org
>
>
> End of ardour-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5
> *****************************************
>
--
======================
Rick Nance
De Montfort University
Leicester, UK
RickNance.org
More information about the Ardour-Dev
mailing list