> On 09/22/2016 07:30 PM, Tito Latini wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:16:12AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
>>> > Ableton have now done that, albeit by circumventing the hardest parts
>>> > the problem (a tempo map with varying meter and tempo).
>> I repeat: that's not an innovation.
> Did anyone say it was? Why does it matter if it's innovation?
> Compared to all the prior-art, I suppose the interesting part of Link is
> momentum behind it, along with the apple-style dictated protocol: take
> it as-is or leave it. Not the usual years of consortium design
> discussions which may or may not eventually result in consensus and more
> like a floss-like benevolent dictator style (think jack, or LV2).
> The closest thing to innovation is "Pro Audio company that usually does
> closed-source proprietary software publishes an API and reference
> implementation under GPLv2" and it work on GNU/Linux, too.
> That's pretty cool IMHO and I wish more companies would do that!
> Also coming up with a protocol is the easier part. Documenting it,
> pushing it out to users, gaining traction in the industry etc is the
> hard part.
Only for Professional Audio. There are plenty of examples of Open Source
projects leading the field in other markets.
IMO that is the main contributor to the perceived animosity to companies
like Ableton from *some* open source developers.
There are now numerous examples of real companies with real incomes
contributing directly to open source API's/frameworks/projects without
having to retain explicit ownership/control and branding rights.
The big exception seems to be professional audio where almost all the
major players (Harrison is a notable exception) want to invent the wheel
and go it alone.
Why is it that after so many years, effort and examples such as the Linux
Audio Consortium, the Linux Audio Conference, ALSA, JACK, LV2, Ardour we
still encounter this attitude from the proprietary players?
Boost Hardware Ltd
Linux-audio-dev mailing list