Sal Randolph
Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:51:42 -0800
> I think it is a least a bit strange to "strongly recommend" a > patented, anti open source format for this purpose. I know the > "pragmatic reasons" from personal experience (i.e. friends asking "how > do I play your ogg-track?"), but from the misson, that opensound.org > seems to be on, I'd expect a strong recommendation of ogg over mp3, > and only use mp3 as a (bad) alternative, when there already is an ogg. Of course this is a good critique, and I did spend time agonizing a bit about all this, but the structure of phase two of the project, where people are creating online microlables, really does require that all the files are pretty much in the same format, easy for anyone to download and burn directly. My feeling is that ogg just isn't there yet & my hope is that it will be more widely adopted as time goes on. I certainly do understand why you might disagree however. >> Opsound is a music label, btw, and I don't think they are at all >> affiliated with any "opensound" project > > You're right, my mistake: I should have done copy/paste instead of > typing the URL on my own. I was referring to opsound.org only, who are > a music label, but also describe themselves as "a record label using > an open source, copyleft model" The Opsound project is a kind of odd hybrid of an open sound pool of freely copyable material (copylefted) and a record label which is planning both online and realworld record releases. The inspiration is very much from the example of the free sofware and open source software communities. At this point the "they" of Opsound is really me, so I'm happy to answer questions if you have them. Sal