[Ardour-Dev] funding priorities
pshirkey at boosthardware.com
Mon Jan 19 21:45:32 PST 2009
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> Mike Taht wrote:
>>> Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey at boosthardware.com> wrote:
>> 8: Paid for SVN
>> Pointless and counterproductive. (besides, I'd like a switch to git)
>> 9: Paid License to: disable crippled interface, Get access to more
>> features, Disable RSS ticker
>> This incrementalism would help in the short term and hurt in the long term.
>> I rather think that all of 8 and most of 9 are not feasible and will
>> result in another endless pointless licensing discussion.
> i agree with mike that both point 8 and 9 are totally pointless and
> how can a free software project be fostered by methods that are the
> essence of closed-software PITA?
> for the sake of everyone's time, let's not discuss such ideas further.
> if i want nag screens, stupid arbitrary limitations and an altogether
> unpleasing user experience, i can buy a soundcard with bundled "share
> ware" or cubase LE or whatnot today. i don't need ardour for that.
> the moment ardour takes this path, it's obsolete, and the community will
This is not about how to make Ardour fulfill your personal fantasy for
an open source project.
This is about keeping Paul employed to work on Ardour instead of letting
some other company get access to all that energy.
The attitude some people here have towards the suggested ideas for
licensing give me the impression that they don't really care if Paul is
forced to stop working on Ardour.
The ideas are not going to make Ardour a monopoly or force a closed
source system on people who don't know any better. They are simply ways
of getting people who normally wouldn't contribute to actually do so.
Boost Hardware Ltd.
More information about the Ardour-Dev