As I nervously enter the fray... I work for Muse Research. And yes we are using Linux. But no we aren't going to tell customers about it in any obvious way. Most of them don't care, and would indeed be confused by that piece of information.
We have a team with good knowledge of this market (former Opcode, Passport, E-Mu), and have a good sense of our potential customers. They want it to work well and sound good; most don't care what OS it is running. But we don't make any secret of it: Linux is great and is a great boon to our company. And obviously we will abide by the terms of the licenses of the software we are making use of. It frightens me to hear a statement like "obvious breach of the GPL license." Please help me out with this: I thought we just had to make the sources available (they will be available on our or via our web site), return any changes we make to the developers (we haven't changed much but we have contributed back to the Wine project, for instance), and not change or remove the copyright notices from the source (which of course we won't). Am I off track? Thanks for any help ... mo On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 08:37, Marek Peteraj wrote: > On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 22:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 04:08:34AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:57:32AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Companies using Linux in musical gear besides Lionstracs: Plugzilla (a > > > > > > rack that can play VSTs), Muse Receptor (similar concept), Hartman > > > > > > Neuron (a synth). Unfortunately the others are based on pretty > > > > > > closed design and most don't even tell you that's based on Linux. > > > > > > Perhaps their attitude will change > > > > > > in future. > > > > > > > > > > I just quickly checked their sites, and there's indeed absolutely no > > > > > mention of using Linux. If they're all indeed using Linux, then it's an > > > > > obvious breach of the GPL license.
