[ardour-dev] ardour-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5

Taybin Rutkin taybin at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 8 13:07:59 PST 2006


I think speculating about a fork is premature at this point.  But maybe all speculating is premature by definition.

Taybin

-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick <ricknance at gmail.com>
>Sent: Feb 8, 2006 3:59 PM
>To: ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
>Subject: Re: [ardour-dev] ardour-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 5
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>ardour-dev mailing list
>ardour-dev at lists.ardour.org
>http://lists.ardour.org/listinfo.cgi/ardour-dev-ardour.org




More information about the Ardour-Dev mailing list