Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:14:05 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 18:52 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:11:55 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 02:24 +, pete shorthose wrote: Um. When the point being made is literally that most people think X, ad populum is obviously not a fallacy. unfortunately for me, you are quite right. but only about that. now, as i stand by everything else i said, and as you neither dealt with it nor conceded anything, we don't actually seem to be arguing about anything at all any more. were we ever? yeah. unless you think irc is a parallel universe. cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:11:55 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 02:24 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:18:00 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:39 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy combination of pejoratives and craft them into a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket because i'm well and truly done talking to you. i might as well be debating an ATM. No, that's quite alright. You began the attacks, you may finish them. I'm not sure how you can possibly justify the ridiculous argument above given the nature of how this sub-thread began (i.e. you attacking me). bull. you used the ad populum logical fallacy to defend your favoured interpretation of a contentious term. i used that same logical fallacy against you because it was false. obviously, as a natural consequence of refuting me, you would refute your earlier argument. Um. When the point being made is literally that most people think X, ad populum is obviously not a fallacy. unfortunately for me, you are quite right. but only about that. now, as i stand by everything else i said, and as you neither dealt with it nor conceded anything, we don't actually seem to be arguing about anything at all any more. looks like we are both done. cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
Am Mittwoch, 30. Januar 2008 schrieb pete shorthose: looks like we are both done. Finally! Please keep it with that... Arnold -- visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ --- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a rm -rf /. Or ask your administrator to do so... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 10:42 +, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 06:25:31 schrieben Sie: On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 03:16 +, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: So get it: there is NOT only one definition of the term open source when standing alone. Like with many unspecific short terms, different people have different opinions of those short terms. Yours just coincidentally is shared by virtually nobody and it just so happens that this arbitrary definiton matches exactly your software which you wish to call 'open source' for PR reasons. Right, just by the majority of e.g. all Windows and OS X users, hmm who reflect the majority of all users anyway. And right, I forgot I'm promoting a product. Thanks Dave for enlighten us about the truth! Now I clearly see there is only white and nothing else than white! Well, maybe black, but the black ones are evil by definition and don't count. Then why not call it MS or AS and be done with it? -- Patrick Shirkey Boost Hardware Ltd. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
Am Dienstag, 29. Januar 2008 06:25:31 schrieben Sie: On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 03:16 +, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: So get it: there is NOT only one definition of the term open source when standing alone. Like with many unspecific short terms, different people have different opinions of those short terms. Yours just coincidentally is shared by virtually nobody and it just so happens that this arbitrary definiton matches exactly your software which you wish to call 'open source' for PR reasons. Right, just by the majority of e.g. all Windows and OS X users, hmm who reflect the majority of all users anyway. And right, I forgot I'm promoting a product. Thanks Dave for enlighten us about the truth! Now I clearly see there is only white and nothing else than white! Well, maybe black, but the black ones are evil by definition and don't count. Thanks my Pope! How could I ever have doubts in your holy inerrable words. CU Christian ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:25:31 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and it just so happens that this arbitrary definiton matches exactly your software which you wish to call 'open source' for PR reasons. virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? virtually nobody even knows who /you/ are, let alone what you think. how's that? -DR- cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:25:31 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yours just coincidentally is shared by virtually nobody did you just presume to speak for virtually everybody? I suppose it's also presumptuous to say that virtually everybody thinks the sky is blue? Duh. that's hardly contentious. it certainly isn't in the context of this conversation. so no. and it just so happens that this arbitrary definiton matches exactly your software which you wish to call 'open source' for PR reasons. virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very active on this list nor in the community in general. it's even truer in the wider context. so, pejorative implications aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement to make. quite what it has to do with the matter at hand, i'm not so sure. cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:25:31 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yours just coincidentally is shared by virtually nobody did you just presume to speak for virtually everybody? I suppose it's also presumptuous to say that virtually everybody thinks the sky is blue? Duh. and it just so happens that this arbitrary definiton matches exactly your software which you wish to call 'open source' for PR reasons. virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? cheers, Indeed. -DR- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very active on this list nor in the community in general. it's even truer in the wider context. so, pejorative implications aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement to make. quite what it has to do with the matter at hand, i'm not so sure. You started it, don't complain when you get what's coming ;) ok. get back to me when you can justify your statement with something other then an ad hominem. Um... You say X to me. I say X to you. hardly. even if you missed the point (which i doubt, having sparred with you on irc numerous times, to altogether more humorous effect) i even explained on irc that it was not intended as an insult, that i was illustrating an invalid debating tactic by using it against you. in order to tackle it directly you cannot avoid undermining your own use of it. and you knew it too. hence you changed the subject to how i was a nobody and hence irrelevant. now, in the scheme of things, that may even be true, but it doesn't make me wrong. so there, that's cleared that up. _again_. You accuse me of ad hominem. indeed. you didn't tackle my point directly, preferring instead to question my right to criticise you at all for reasons unrelated to the topic of discussion. text book ad hominem. i doubt that even you would attempt to dispute that. (well, perhaps doubt is too strong a word) I'll get back to you when you know something about discourse other than being able to quote fancy words you don't seem to understand. you just served up some fresh insults and still didn't justify what you said. i tell you, i'm not in the least bit fucking surprised. now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy combination of pejoratives and craft them into a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket because i'm well and truly done talking to you. i might as well be debating an ATM. cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very active on this list nor in the community in general. it's even truer in the wider context. so, pejorative implications aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement to make. quite what it has to do with the matter at hand, i'm not so sure. You started it, don't complain when you get what's coming ;) ok. get back to me when you can justify your statement with something other then an ad hominem. cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very active on this list nor in the community in general. it's even truer in the wider context. so, pejorative implications aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement to make. quite what it has to do with the matter at hand, i'm not so sure. You started it, don't complain when you get what's coming ;) -DR- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:39 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 14:00 +, pete shorthose wrote: virtually nobody cares what you think. how's that? Virtually nobody even knows who you are, let alone what you think. How's that? i'd agree with that entirely. i'm not very active on this list nor in the community in general. it's even truer in the wider context. so, pejorative implications aside, yeah, that's also a fair statement to make. quite what it has to do with the matter at hand, i'm not so sure. You started it, don't complain when you get what's coming ;) ok. get back to me when you can justify your statement with something other then an ad hominem. Um... You say X to me. I say X to you. hardly. even if you missed the point (which i doubt, having sparred with you on irc numerous times, to altogether more humorous effect) i even explained on irc that it was not intended as an insult, that i was illustrating an invalid debating tactic by using it against you. in order to tackle it directly you cannot avoid undermining your own use of it. and you knew it too. hence you changed the subject to how i was a nobody and hence irrelevant. now, in the scheme of things, that may even be true, but it doesn't make me wrong. so there, that's cleared that up. _again_. You accuse me of ad hominem. indeed. you didn't tackle my point directly, preferring instead to question my right to criticise you at all for reasons unrelated to the topic of discussion. text book ad hominem. i doubt that even you would attempt to dispute that. (well, perhaps doubt is too strong a word) I'll get back to you when you know something about discourse other than being able to quote fancy words you don't seem to understand. you just served up some fresh insults and still didn't justify what you said. i tell you, i'm not in the least bit fucking surprised. now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy combination of pejoratives and craft them into a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket because i'm well and truly done talking to you. i might as well be debating an ATM. No, that's quite alright. You began the attacks, you may finish them. I'm not sure how you can possibly justify the ridiculous argument above given the nature of how this sub-thread began (i.e. you attacking me). You win? I guess? -DR- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:18:00 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:39 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:13:02 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:28 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:44:46 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:22 +, pete shorthose wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:41:39 -0500 Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: now, if you feel the need, concoct some juicy combination of pejoratives and craft them into a rejoinder. it's a free shot at the basket because i'm well and truly done talking to you. i might as well be debating an ATM. No, that's quite alright. You began the attacks, you may finish them. I'm not sure how you can possibly justify the ridiculous argument above given the nature of how this sub-thread began (i.e. you attacking me). bull. you used the ad populum logical fallacy to defend your favoured interpretation of a contentious term. i used that same logical fallacy against you because it was false. obviously, as a natural consequence of refuting me, you would refute your earlier argument. i thought you would appreciate it given our seemingly endless debate about the viability of theoretically riding a theoretical bicycle. you can hardly claim to be ignorant of debating methods and their uses. i even said virtually no one welcomes drobilla when you joined #lad on freenode. it was TEH FUNNEZ! so you see, how did i insult you if i used a _false_ argument? it's just nonsense. granted, it's possible that some may have missed my point (i seriously doubt you did, and that is a complement i might add) but i subsequently explained it, TWICE before and now thrice. did you not read what i wrote, or, what exactly? it's just not credible to continuously maintain that i insulted you. to do so however, does capably distract from the fact that you were wrong. which i think is EXACTLY the point. open source is a contentious term. it's use predates any attempt by vested interests to canonise it. it is intrinsically ambiguous when used to describe source code as the historical use of the term open implies nothing reliable what so ever about the terms of a fucking software license. to my mind, the OSI has a decidedly corporate bent and thus i'm not at all surprised to find that a corporate clause is verboten. in short, it's an awful term to use in an *unqualified* manner. not that you care, running roughshod over any dissenting voices safe in the ken that your position in the community affords you special privilege. what was it you said about deceit and PR? to people who have worked damned hard to get us a gig compatible sampler on linux? if you had said that LS is not in conformance with open source as defined by the OSI, then benno or christian would have probably replied, you are correct, and that isn't important to me. and that would have been that. now, the reason i'm rather more uhm.. energised than usual is due to that lovely little chat on irc that we had in the interim. where you so generously implied that, whilst it's presumably ok for you to fill up the lists with views on the validity of software licenses, us low folk better shut the hell up and not bother you with their silly views else you'll up and leave the community. well you know, if you're that sensitive, don't discuss it in the first place. and don't ever try and blackmail me with dumb shit like that. i'm not in the tiniest bit impressed with your alpha male crap. the only reason we don't go at it a lot more is because you contribute a great deal to linux audio and my handful of edits to a few apps does is not sufficient for me to regularly infringe on the peace of mind of the list subbers. (and to be honest, even if i matched you in terms of code output, i still wouldn't make a habit of it) i'm probably as arrogant and aggressive as you but at least i try to keep it under wraps eh? cheers, pete. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] LS licensing (was: LV2 quot; isn't well thought out ?quot; LV2 in the Reaper sequencer)
On Sat, 2008-01-26 at 03:16 +, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: So get it: there is NOT only one definition of the term open source when standing alone. Like with many unspecific short terms, different people have different opinions of those short terms. Yours just coincidentally is shared by virtually nobody and it just so happens that this arbitrary definiton matches exactly your software which you wish to call 'open source' for PR reasons. Convenient coincidence, that. -DR- ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
