On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 05:42:24PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
So we'd be better off with no definition of open source or free
software at all?
I didn't say that. But there is a problem with such a
definition.
When the words 'round table' are used to mean 'a meeting
of all concerned parties,
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:09:02 +0100
Fons Adriaensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:15 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
But that's really the
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:15 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
But that's really the funny thing here. Your software isn't from the
free/open source software
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:09 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:15 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
But that's really the funny thing here.
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:33 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, I talked to Justin and tried to get him over here, but he won't
join the discussion.
In his opinion there's too much zealotism here and thus he sees it as a
waste of time. Also, regarding the initial quote he said that it was
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
But that's really the funny thing here. Your software isn't from the
free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither
the free software definition nor the open source definition.
I'm glad that GPLv3 fixes this
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 20:42 +, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 19:05:49 schrieb Thorsten Wilms:
I don't quite see what would stop a company from bundling LS with
commercial content, stating that LS is included as a freebie.
It's simple: as soon as it's
Benno Senoner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
after all we share all the same goal of better and free tools to
make music
I'm confused, because this is not true. Your software, LinuxSampler,
is not free software. You've also refused to participate in all the
threads we've got on this list about your
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:02:29PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
Benno Senoner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
after all we share all the same goal of better and free tools to
make music
I'm confused, because this is not true. Your software, LinuxSampler,
is not free software. You've also
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 21:15 +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
I'm glad that GPLv3 fixes this issue, cause if you state that the
software is under GPLv3 you may not impose any further restrictions on
the work, if I read the license correctly.
You read it wrong. For two different reasons. First, the
Paul Davis wrote:
You read it wrong. For two different reasons. First, the same mistake
than Arnold made earlier. The GPL (whatever version) is the text that
lays out the terms of a license. Anyone can refer to this text but then
add exceptions, extensions. I can even say Its licensed under
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 21:15 +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
alex stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we just want to avoid somebody to directly make money with our work,
that is by selling our software in a sampler product like a sampler
+ sample library bundle, a hardware sampler or something
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 20:15:35 schrieb Esben Stien:
But that's really the funny thing here. Your software isn't from the
free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither
the free software definition nor the open source definition.
Wrong:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 schrieb Krzysztof Foltman:
Paul Davis wrote:
You read it wrong. For two different reasons. First, the same mistake
than Arnold made earlier. The GPL (whatever version) is the text that
lays out the terms of a license. Anyone can refer to this text but then
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 23:08:05 schrieben Sie:
When people talk about free software and open source, it goes really
without saying that they talk about free software as defined by the
FSF and open source as defined by the open source initiative, but
obviously not in your case.
You
I apologize if hurted or offended anyone it was not my intention, after all
we share all
the same goal of better and free tools to make music.
Perhaps people got irritated by Justin's comments on LV2 which probably only
took
a quick look at the LV2 so as Dave R. pointed out (thanks) most of his
Dave Phillips wrote:
So responding with sarcasm, We'll do it my way or not at all
conditions, and a confrontive attitude qualifies as the spirit of
collaboration ? Geez, you guys are really winning me over.
It's the good right of Dave and Lars to not care or even outright
reject closed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:
So responding with sarcasm, We'll do it my way or not at all
conditions, and a confrontive attitude qualifies as the spirit of
collaboration ? Geez, you guys are really winning me over.
It's the good right of Dave and Lars to not care or
On 22 Jan 2008, at 12:50, Pieter Palmers wrote:
We do have to keep in mind that we are talking about a LV2 'standard'
here. A standard is generally conceived to make different (competing)
products compatible with each other. Drafting a standard always
requires
competitors to work together
Well Dave P, what should I say ?
I think the attitude of certain LAD-ers is one of the reasons why linux
audio will
remain an irrelevant niche for a long time to come.
How can you you create a standard like LV2 and then make statements like
reaper is the enemy ?
I think LV2 devs did not do their
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 07:49 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:
So responding with sarcasm, We'll do it my way or not at all
conditions, and a confrontive attitude qualifies as the spirit of
collaboration ? Geez, you guys are really winning
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 15:18 +0100, Benno Senoner wrote:
I think the attitude of certain LAD-ers is one of the reasons why
linux audio will
remain an irrelevant niche for a long time to come.
How about you put in names, coward?
You imply that there is some kind of overall linux audio thing.
On 12:49:52 pm 01/22/08 Dave Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:
So responding with sarcasm, We'll do it my way or not at all
conditions, and a confrontive attitude qualifies as the spirit
of collaboration ? Geez, you guys are really
23 matches
Mail list logo
