To answer your last question: have a look at webpd:
https://github.com/sebpiq/WebPd
There's a simple demo patch here:
http://sebpiq.github.io/WebPd/sound-check/sound-check.html
That's Pd's basic audio engine and message passing system running in
javascript. So in terms of open source, the efficiency is undeniable. To run
Max/MSP in a web page, they'd have to figure out some complex way to protect
their proprietary code while still making it possible to make sounds by adding
a script in the html. The only practical thing I could think of is running a
centralized service, but again that costs money and maintenance where a
decentralized lib like webpd runs on the user's device.
Addressing the oddity of using proprietary software (IOS) to point out the
benefits of open source:
Unfortunately the open source definition was designed to subtly hide the
ethical reasons for doing open source development. The reasoning for this was
quite straightforward-- "share with your neighbor" doesn't attract business
dollars. So open source advocates focus on efficiency, like the ability to
plug a 3-clause BSD-licensed library into just about any device you want, even
a device that is locked down and requires the final app to be proprietary.
This is equivalent to teaching the scientific method, but downplaying the
importance of reproducibility for some seemingly practical purpose. If enough
scientists are weak on such a fundamental aspect of their job due to bad
education it will degrade their ability to carry out meaningful, reproducible
experiments.
So open source advocates can't have it both ways. If they purposely exclude
the golden rule and "user freedom" from their marketing materials because it's
such a drag, I don't see how they can complain when the efficiency of their dev
model takes users and business to places the initiative didn't want them to end
up. Whether it's Google's centralized services or Apple and Android
smartphones that spy on the user, you can't fight back if you aren't willing to
state the fundamental principle that users must be free to determine how the
devices they own actually operate.
If anyone wants to read a principled statement on user freedom, it's here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
-Jonathan
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:24 PM, Simon Wise <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/14 11:53, Pall Thayer wrote:
> I'm giving a presentation this week. In a way, it's a counter argument to a
> recent presentation on Max/MSP. One of the things that I want to highlight
> is the "open sourceness" of PD. libpd presents a very good argument and
> I'll be highlighting a project I was involved with that produced an IOS app
> that used libpd as the audio engine. Is there anything else I should be
> considering besides the obvious points of open source being open source.
> Concrete examples of PD's open sourceness trumping proprietary technologies?
IOs is an odd choice for talking about open source when the only way to install
such an app in a device (without jailbreaking it or paying the developer tithe)
is by licensing the binary closed source (on their terms) to Apple to
distribute
via their platform-monopoly app store, which will not distribute the sources or
GPL or LGPL apps?
Certainly licenses such as libpd's BSD like one do allow reuse of the code in
any app, open source or otherwise, but then is that use still open source???
Simon
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
