Re: LinuxSampler license, was Re: [linux-audio-dev] fst, VST 2.0, kontakt
I have a simple question: Which companies are (or have been) distributing LinuxSampler as part of a package also including hardware and/or proprietary software? Cheers, Andreas --- Paul Davis wrote: On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 10:22 +1000, Ryan Heise wrote: On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:55:11PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: both guesses are wrong. i think it will be precise enough to say that a company expressed what appeared to be a serious interest in leveraging the existence of LS for its own plans. relationships changed between the various parties, and the LS developers were left in a situation where work they had already done might be used in ways they did not consent to. Meanwhile, the company felt that it was the LS developers who had failed to follow through on the agreement. i don't think its feasible to be more precise than this. the core point of the story is that you cannot stop other organizations from making use of your GPL-licensed work even if you have entered into some different kind of arrangement with them. for some people, this represents a serious issue. Licensing software under the GPL is giving others consent to use that software commercially in certain ways. If there was an additional agreement with this specific company that they would not use it in some of those ways, it still wouldn't stop other companies who haven't signed that additional agreement to use the software in whatever way was granted to them under the GPL. What confuses me is why the authors of the software chose to release the code under the GPL and also didn't (as it seems) want to consent to others using the software in some of the ways granted by the GPL. Do I have the wrong picture? (maybe I do, I am just going on the little information provided above.) there is a big difference in how a developer might see this depending on the relationship with the other party. lets take a concrete case that i *can* talk about freely. we are quite open about the fact that there are commercial organizations that have both financially supported Ardour's development and have also been evangelizing for it quite energetically in some key high end markets. that has created positive relationships to date. now suppose (and i want to stress that i am not for one moment suggesting that i believe that this will happen) that one such relationship turned ugly. lets say, really ugly. really ugly as in if you ever even talk about how ugly this got, we'll see you in court, if not before.. or uglier. you get the idea. how do you think that i and the many other people who have worked on ardour would feel about allowing a company that ended up putting us in this situation to continue to ardour under the GPL? we would not be able to stop it, and i would hope that i would have the honor and class not to even try, but it would clearly leave a very sour taste in my mouth (and others' mouths too, i suspect). something broadly analogous to this happened to the LS guys. unless you can say in all sincerity that you'd be able to just wave it past you, smile sweetly and mutter oh, that's just the GPL at work, i think you have to be careful when judging other people's actions. and for this history buffs, i seem to recall that it was precisely this kind of situation that gave rise to the Aladdin Public License, from the person who wrote GhostScript. --p
Re: LinuxSampler license, was Re: [linux-audio-dev] fst, VST 2.0, kontakt
Dave Phillips or Christian Schoenebeck wrote: Unfortunately I haven't found an existing open source license which would reflect those restrictions. Some even said this wouldn't be an open source license according to definitions of XY, but personally I think it would. I suggest that you read this: The Open Source Definition http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php Especially have a look at point 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor). So maybe we would have to write a new license, like a Participation License or something which might also be used by other projects in future of course. Do so, but then do not tell anyone that this is an Open Source-license - it is not. Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Edirol FA-101
Lee Revell wrote:: Do you have any evidence that anyone has ever made this work? This probably does not count as evidence but it is on the list of devices supported by FreeBoB: http://freebob.sourceforge.net/index.php/List_of_Supported_Devices Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] [ANN] Symmetries premiere recording nowavailable (and other goodies)
Jens M Andreasen wrote: The ensemble is off by at least 5hz occasionally. It sounds like your oscillators are getting payed to do the job in spite of deeply hating contemporary music. That is the funniest formulation I have read for months. Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] jack.el -- Run and monitor JACK from withinEmacs
Mario Lang wrote: Clue me in, I've never seen any reference to .jackdrc yet. Right now, you'd customize the jack group in Emacs to change default startup options? Does ~/.jackdrc get read by jackd? Is it documented somewhere? There is a paragraph at the end of this page: http://jackit.sourceforge.net/releases/0.98.0/notice.php Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracktion, JUCE and Linux
Alfons Adriaensen wrote: ... - I've only taken a few bits from other people, and it's generally involved them sending me something they've written, and then me re-writing it because it's not done in quite the way I like it! ... 2. The quote above is quite informative IMHO. This type accepts possibly GPL-ed code from others, rewrites it completely so he can claim it is his own work, and then sells it. This mailing list should not be used to distribute unfounded insinuations or slanders. Have a look at the development process used for the Linux kernel. There are pretty strict rules for the code and many non-regular contributors are not aware of them. Sometimes the code is changed so that it follows the rules and in other cases it simply is rejected. Cheers, Andreas BTW: I agree that dual licensing can lead to problems.
GPL FAQs (Re: [linux-audio-dev] Tracktion, JUCE and Linux)
Those who are interested in licensing issues and questions might want to RTF (Read The FAQ) before asking specific questions here: Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html MySQL and OpenOffice are well known projects using some kind of dual licensing. Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] latencytest on 2.6 kernels?
Try version 0.5.5:
http://www.alsa-project.org/~iwai/alsa.html#LatencyTest
There is a syntax error in showtrace.c but it is pretty obvious how to correct
it.
Cheers,
Andreas
- Original Message -
From: Paul Winkler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 9:38 PM
Subject: [linux-audio-dev] latencytest on 2.6 kernels?
Hiya,
Now that I've finallly gone to a 2.6 kernel (latest gentoo-sources,
2.6.11.something) I thought I'd fire up latencytest and see
what it tells me. Unfortunately, latencytest0.42 still seems
to be the latest and it no longer compiles. Anybody got a fix?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] latencytest0.42 $ make
gcc -Wall -O2 -DUSE_PENTIUM_TIMER -c rtc_latencytest.c
rtc_latencytest.c:24:41: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
rtc_latencytest.c:25: error: syntax error before '{' token
rtc_latencytest.c: In function `main':
rtc_latencytest.c:142: warning: passing arg 2 of `signal' from
incompatible pointer type
rtc_latencytest.c:143: warning: passing arg 2 of `signal' from
incompatible pointer type
rtc_latencytest.c:261:24: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
rtc_latencytest.c:261: error: `rdtsc' undeclared (first use in this
function)
rtc_latencytest.c:261: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported
only once
rtc_latencytest.c:261: error: for each function it appears in.)
rtc_latencytest.c:295:22: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
rtc_latencytest.c: In function `my_exithandler':
rtc_latencytest.c:295: error: `rdtsc' undeclared (first use in this
function)
rtc_latencytest.c:365:19: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
rtc_latencytest.c: In function `calibrate_loop':
rtc_latencytest.c:365: error: `rdtsc' undeclared (first use in this
function)
rtc_latencytest.c:367:19: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
rtc_latencytest.c:406:21: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
rtc_latencytest.c: In function `sigio_handler':
rtc_latencytest.c:406: error: `rdtsc' undeclared (first use in this
function)
rtc_latencytest.c:408:21: macro rdtsc requires 2 arguments, but only 1
given
make: *** [rtc_latencytest.o] Error 1
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Re: [linux-audio-dev] GPL concerns
RTFF (Read The Fine FAQ), please. See: Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html Licenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html Cheers, Andreas - Original Message - From: Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:31 AM Subject: [linux-audio-dev] GPL concerns Hey everyone. I have a bland but important question for everyone. Say hypothetically a company is developing an audio product using lots of GPL source, but for whatever marketing reasons asks for NDA concerning the codebase. Lots of GPL work is referenced and at least dynamically linked, and though the company has directly stated that it will release the codebase publicly with the product release (once it is complete). I am curious as to the general feel in the community on such practices. Would this 1) be a violation of the GPL, 2) if it is how tolerant would the OSS community be, considering the general good intent of the project, and 3) if I were asked to sign such a NDA would that document be a binding agreement even if the NDA itself might be a violation of the GPL since it is inherently counterintuitive to the intent of the GPL. Anyway, I know some of you have already been there with the fun NDA stuff and thought you the best bunch of people to ask before getting myself stuck in a NDA I am not completely comfortable with. The current project cycle (hypothetically) is two years. I know this is happening in the industry quite frequently already, but I am not sure I completely agree or disagree with the practice (assuming the codebase does make it into the public domain). On one hand I can sympathize with the difficulties involved in bringing new products to market and how leaks in early design phases can undercut profits enormously. On the otherhand I would love to see more companies taking an open and community approach to product development such as open ICs, and even open business management. I am sure this would happen a lot more if such efforts were a tax write off :), but then we live in the world we live in. Any thoughts, references to successful business models concerning hardware development with free software, and legal cautions are all greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Shane PS I apologize in advance for any redundancy on this subject :).
[linux-audio-dev] Re: [linux-audio-announce] 64 Studio - a new distribution for creativex86_64 users
Who is we? Does marketed to hardware OEMs imply that this is a commercial project? What is the (intended) relation/difference to DeMuDi? Cheers, Andreas - Original Message - From: Daniel James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Linux Audio Announce list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 12:04 PM Subject: [linux-audio-announce] 64 Studio - a new distribution for creativex86_64 users Hello all, 64 Studio is a collection of software designed specifically for content creation on x86_64 hardware (that's AMD's 64-bit CPUs and Intel's EMT64 chips), including audio, video and design applications. It's based on the pure 64 port of Debian GNU/Linux, but with a specialised package selection and lots of other customisations. It will be marketed to hardware OEMs in the creative workstation and laptop markets as an alternative to the 64-bit version of Windows XP, or OS X on Apple hardware. We are currently working on a prototype. Our next step will be a CD-ROM installer image which will be distributed to beta testers. If you're interested in this project, please see the FAQ on the website, or join our mailing list. http://64studio.com/ Cheers Daniel ___ linux-audio-announce mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-announce
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux DSP Hardware?
One could think about using 3D graphics hardware for audio DSP purposes. There are commercial projects which do that (only for Windows AFAIK). Cheers, Andreas - Original Message - From: David Olofson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux DSP Hardware? On Tuesday 22 February 2005 05.41, jipi wrote: Hi All, I was thinking, we always have dedicated graphic cards for gaming/3D rendering etc.. why don't we have some h/w optimised audio algos running on some FPGA/DSP/ etc... Because there isn't enough demand for it. Only musicians have any serious use for that kind of hardware, whereas half the planet needs accelerated graphics - especially with all the eyecandy that Microsoft, Apple, the KDE and Gnome people etc have decided we need. ;-) on linux... Dito. The state of accelerated audio on Linux should realistically relate to the corresponding on Windows and Mac in the same way as 3D acceleration on Linux vs Windows and Mac - and it pretty much does, I think... Some popular hardware is supported by Free/Open Source drivers to some extent, some vendor has tried to support the Linux community to some extent, and that's about it. look at these.. are there simple/cheap/open versions of these? Simple: Not possible, unless you'll settle for a toy synth... Cheap: Cheap and good are basically mutually exclusive when it comes to hardware. The best you can do is to use high volume components. Currently, that means standard general purpose DSP chips for small devices, and probably AMD64 chips for heavier gear. Open: Only if you're ready to pay a premium for the lost revenue resulting from opening up the trade secrets. You don't want to design some cool hardware only to have some foreign company make a clone of it, sell it dirt cheap (*you* paid the development costs!) and put you out of business. That doesn't mean you have to close both the design *and* the programming info, but try to explain that to the management of your average company... Also try to explain why they should be taking the risk of making reverse engineering easier for no significant monetary gain. http://www.lyrtech.com/DSP-development/audio/index.php http://www.zpeng.com/Articles/Section1/digitalaudio.html http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/partners/kit-ate-dmck.html http://lts1pc19.epfl.ch/repository/Simeonov2004_737.pdf what we require is a separate card which can take a few channels of audio lines and process them in a cheap FPGA/DSP (put in your favourite **HW LADSPA** algo).. and route them back to the main audio card.. If it's actually supposed to do something serious, it won't be cheap. Really powerful DSPs are nowhere near cheap. If you're into dedicated hardware anyway, why not just hook up a PC (SBC, perhaps; though you still get more power/$ if you buy standard mainstream PC components) running RTLinux or RTAI? Cheaper and much easier to deal with... of course I am for the idea of using clusters of linux PCs while some of them do different types of audio processing, but not everyone has access to more than 1 PC.. : Well, if you can get any DSP hardware worth using, you might as well get another PC... As an extra bonus, you get a universal machine, as opposed to some oddball DSP card that you're hard pushed to even get it to do what you purchased it for. Now, if you really don't want to use another PC, and want lots of dirt cheap processing power, how about learning some EMU10k1 asm? :-) Seems to have more DSP power than your average studio sampler - and since it's a high volume product, just like the 3D accelerators, it lets you see some of the silicon is free effect. That's the closest audio gets to the state of 3D acceleration currently, AFAIK. //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- Audiality ---. | Free/Open Source audio engine for games and multimedia. | | MIDI, modular synthesis, real time effects, scripting,... | `--- http://audiality.org -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux DSP Hardware?
GPGPU /Audio and Signal Processing http://www.gpgpu.org/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/Audio%20and%20Signal%20Processing/index .html - Original Message - From: Jack O'Quin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Linux DSP Hardware? Steve Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:11:25 +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: One could think about using 3D graphics hardware for audio DSP purposes. There are commercial projects which do that (only for Windows AFAIK). There are also some free projects, but IIUC, the kinds of precessing you can do are quite limited, it has to be fairly high latency as you need to move the audio data to the card in large blocks. The OpenVIDIA project[1] opens up nVIDIA GPUs for general purpose computing. I suppose this could include audio, but I have no idea what the latencies would be. The bandwidth to the GPU is quite impressive. [1] http://openvidia.sourceforge.net -- joq
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Buggy audio debian packages
oliver oli wrote: how many people are using demudi after how many years of development? it is a waste of money... Obviously oliver oli does not know what he is talking about. Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Firewire support in Linux
Paul Davis wrote: i don't entirely understand how the bridgeco h/w is relevant to a communication protocol between, say, a PreSonus audio interface and a computer running linux. can anyone enlighten me? BridgeCo's Breakout Box solutions are ready-to-go reference designs for manufacturers of music industry equipment. See: http://www.bridgeco.net/products/bebob/index.shtml In other words: manufacturers can buy a complete design (including firmware etc.) from BridgeCo and use that (and components delivered by BridgeCo and others) to manufacture the hardware. PreSonus is one of those manufacturers of music industry equipment: http://www.bridgeco.net/news/PreSonus_Media_Release.shtml Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Firewire support in Linux
but if the 1394 interface on my computer doesn't use a BridgeCo chip, yet still recieves the data from the wire, isn't this a protocol issue, not a h/w issue? It *should* be but unfortunately it seems to be similar to the situation with USB audio hardware. I do not know who can be blamed for that. Cheers, Andreas
GNU Solfege (Re: [linux-audio-dev] seeking minimal C++ library for ear-training)
Did you have a look at GNU Solfege (http://www.solfege.org/) ? (It is not a C++ library but you can do ear training with it :-) Cheers, Andreas - Original Message - From: Jeffrey Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 6:22 AM Subject: [linux-audio-dev] seeking minimal C++ library for ear-training Hi everyone. It's an honor to be read by you. I'm not a professional programmer, but I wrote some text-based C++ programs that quiz me on musical stuff, and was so pleased that I want to do something similar with musical tones. All I'll ever need is a library that will let me playback a sample at a certain set of frequencies -- like 6 at a time (bass tone, high tone, and a four-note chord) -- until keyboard input signals it to stop. In fact, even that's more than I need -- if playing a sample is hard, I'd be perfectly happy listening to square waves. I've looked at some audio libraries (OpenAL, Penguinsound, Sound Object Library) but they're all very intense, designed to do far more than I could even understand, let alone want. Is there a non-threatening, perhaps even easy-to-install, C++ library that will do what I have in mind? (In case it's relevant, I run Mandrake Linux 10.1 Official, KDE, ALSA, and an old Sound Blaster Live. I often go to the San Fernando Valley LUG, in Los Angeles, California.) Thanks in advance, Jeff __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Disappointing LA community ?
Dubphil wrote: Recently I have succeeded in convicing a Manufacturer (Wave Idea) to consider the importance of giving Linux support to his products. I was really convince myself that this initiative will be encouraged by the Linux Audio community. That's why I have posted an help request to make Wave Idea products fully Linux compliant. I did not see that help request and I also did not find it in the mail archives. Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Disappointing LA community ?
I finally found the request. I was looking for Wave Idea instead of WaveIdea ... I have replied to Dubphil by private mail. Cheers, Andreas - Original Message - From: Andreas Kuckartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The Linux Audio Developers' Mailing List linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Disappointing LA community ? Dubphil wrote: Recently I have succeeded in convicing a Manufacturer (Wave Idea) to consider the importance of giving Linux support to his products. I was really convince myself that this initiative will be encouraged by the Linux Audio community. That's why I have posted an help request to make Wave Idea products fully Linux compliant. I did not see that help request and I also did not find it in the mail archives. Cheers, Andreas
[linux-audio-dev] UPnP AV Media Server for Linux ?
UPnP (http://upnp.org) seems to have been adopted by many/most producers of audio streaming devices. I am looking for Open Source Media Server software for Linux which is accessable by UPnP AV Media Renderers. Any suggestions? Interesting material which I have found so far: Overview of UPnP AV Architecture http://www.intel.com/technology/upnp/download/UPnP_AV_Arch.pdf Linux SDK for UPnP Devices 1.2.1 (libupnp) http://upnp.sourceforge.net/ LINUX UPNP INTERNET GATEWAY DEVICE http://linux-igd.sourceforge.net/ CyberLink / CyberMediaGateway http://www.cybergarage.org/net/index.html Intel(R) software for UPnP technology http://www.intel.com/technology/upnp/index.htm Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Steinberg sold to Yamaha
I had already read that. Which effects can be predicted? Cheers, Andreas - Original Message - From: Dave Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: LAD Mail linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu; LAU Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 3:06 PM Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Steinberg sold to Yamaha http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041221/sftu007_1.html MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Pinnacle Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: PCLE http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=pcled=t - News http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=pcle), a leader in digital video solutions, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its Hamburg, Germany-based Steinberg audio software business to Yamaha Corporation. The transaction, which is subject to regulatory approval, is expected to be completed during Pinnacle's third fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005.
[linux-audio-dev] Request/Offer: Debian package for Scala
Unfortunately Manuel Op de Coul, the author of Scala (http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/), currently does not want to change his non-commercial license (perhaps in the future). But he made this offer: However if someone makes a Debian package for it, I'll be happy to distribute it. Scala is written in Ada. If someone wants to help with building a Debian package, please let him know. Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Request/Offer: Debian package for Scala
Paul Brossier wrote: as it is there is no point for the debian project to have it, even in non-free. That is correct. The request was not to add it to Debian but only to help creating a Debian package (a .deb file). will having a debian package for it make him change his mind about the licensing ? It might help a bit to convince him. Cheers, Andreas BTW: The source code is available.
Re: [linux-audio-dev] [Fwd: Graphical dataflow programs violatepatents]
Paul Davis wrote: its not that clear. according to the timeline provided at Ircam, Patcher, the predecessor of Max, was started in 1986. i don't know if patcher had a visual dataflow model or not. Max itself didn't exist till 1990. Miller Puckette (the creator of Patcher and PD) probably could answer that question and probably also knows something about prior art. Relevant articles can almost certainly be found in Computer Music Journal (http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/) and the Prodeedings of the ICMC (http://www.computermusic.org/). Cheers, Andreas
Open Source Hardware (Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: [linux-audio-dev] RME is no more)
Lee Revell wrote: Christ, what the fuck country do you live in? Don't you understand the concept of people having bills to pay? Or do you just assume the RME guys are independenly wealthy and just design sound cards for fun? Interestingly some people seem to be existing who are working on Linux for fun. Also there is a concept known as Open Source Hardware which was mentioned here before. Cheers, Andreas
SCOundrels (Re: [linux-audio-dev] Patents on some Linux OS code)
Pall Thayer wrote: Actually, if I recall correctly, SCO vs Daimler is a breach of contract case. They're suing Daimler Chrysler because they failed to send info on their use of Unix as per the contract at the time, however DC hasn't used the system for several years. This was and is about extortion, fraud, stock manipulation etc. All those lawsuits filed by The SCO Group Inc. are fraudulent. For detailed information see: http://Groklaw.net Cheers, Andreas
Re: [linux-audio-dev] Software with source code?
Stefan Nitschke wrote: I like this idea (particularly because accidentally downloading proprietary garbage won't happen, *ahemRTSynth/digeridooahem*). No problem, I canceled any support for Linux from now until ever. I would understand if you canceled any support for the author of the insulting lines - but blaming Linux or the Linux-Community is just as insulting. Andreas
