El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 00:00 +0200, Olaf Matthes escribió:
rama wrote:
-- now --
i've done some hacks to the pdogg lib from Olaf Matthes (Olaf: are you still around?)
Yes, more or less.
cool! thx for the reply
which have the following changelog:
So you didn't find the threadlocking bug in oggamp~? :-)
hmm not really, I use oggamp~ quite much, and for many (and I mean a lot) of hours it works without problems.
well... actually I was having some pd freezes recently when I moved to kernel 2.6, but now it seems fine. (as I said on the original post you've replied)
what I did was at least those critical bugfixed I've mentioned (however I'm not really a C hacker but can handle some easy stuff it seems) which were quite annoying and easy to fix.
i plan to continue working on the pdogg lib if you don't mind as you left it orphaned ;)
But seriously, I could post a much longer bugfix list, there are much more things that would need a change.
it would be helpful if you'd post this somewhere, or send it to me offlist so I can try to handle that.
But I'm sorry to say that I stopped development of this code as open-source and didn't want to start a war and thus never posted on the pd-list that these objects are now available for a small fee (small concidering the amount of time that went into it) at http://www.nullmedium.de/dev/oggpro/.
aha. I've hit nullmedium & oggpro, but didn't know you where part of it.
actually it's very sad to hear that someone who was doing open source, and great stuff, starts to release binaries only, be it for a small fee or none at all.
i wouldn't like to offend you, but this really means a retro-gression (does this word exist??). you know what I mean.
with the evolution of the open source and the knowledge sharing, I can't really understand that someone can step back again to the "closed" conception.
and you say "small fee considering the amount of time that went into it". then what about pd itself?? much more time and people were and are involved (and each time more i think) and it's still free (gratis) and open.
thanks for reading shönnen tag, r
Olaf
rama wrote:
actually it's very sad to hear that someone who was doing open source, and great stuff, starts to release binaries only, be it for a small fee or none at all.
i wouldn't like to offend you, but this really means a retro-gression (does this word exist??). you know what I mean.
with the evolution of the open source and the knowledge sharing, I can't really understand that someone can step back again to the "closed" conception.
It's not a step backwards, it's just a way to adopt to the real world. My local bakery and supermarket don't give me any food for free and I can't 'pay' there by just giving them a copy of my software. Don't know whether we should blame the supermarket or just me.
and you say "small fee considering the amount of time that went into it". then what about pd itself?? much more time and people were and are involved (and each time more i think) and it's still free (gratis) and open.
That's what I meant when writing "I din't want to start a war"... I would have no problem if I had to pay money for Pd. I payed money for Max/MSP as well and it is okay because I get a software that does what I want. I really understand what you really mean with open source, but you're more or less the first person (apart from Thomas Grill and Frank Barknecht, if I remember correctly) who ever contributed some valuable input to the pdogg code. - Of course, I could have chosen a similar approach as other have done by just making my code (or even code made by others [hint, hint]) better without releasing it at all but I thought it would be better to make it available (I don't use the word 'share' here!) for 30,- EUR instead of not making it available at all. If you can't sleep anymore when using closed source stuff because you fear it might email me your bank account numbers then just stay away from it and use pdogg instead.
Olaf
Hey Olaf,
At first I was suprised that the MAX versions of the ogg stuff were non-free, as a MAXer had mentioned. Now all versions are non-free? How does this relate to the work you have been doing for Zack Settle for Open Territories? (Which has to be GPL). Are you still planning on releasing some sub-portion of your work under the GPL (as Thomas Grill is doing?)
Since versions were freely distributed this does mean that any of us would be free to continue to develop it as a fork from your old free versions? As long as they do not include code from your new non-free versions?
Anyhow just looking for a little clarification.
b>
rama wrote:
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 00:00 +0200, Olaf Matthes escribió:
rama wrote:
-- now --
i've done some hacks to the pdogg lib from Olaf Matthes (Olaf: are you still around?)
Yes, more or less.
cool! thx for the reply
which have the following changelog:
So you didn't find the threadlocking bug in oggamp~? :-)
hmm not really, I use oggamp~ quite much, and for many (and I mean a lot) of hours it works without problems.
well... actually I was having some pd freezes recently when I moved to kernel 2.6, but now it seems fine. (as I said on the original post you've replied)
what I did was at least those critical bugfixed I've mentioned (however I'm not really a C hacker but can handle some easy stuff it seems) which were quite annoying and easy to fix.
i plan to continue working on the pdogg lib if you don't mind as you left it orphaned ;)
But seriously, I could post a much longer bugfix list, there are much more things that would need a change.
it would be helpful if you'd post this somewhere, or send it to me offlist so I can try to handle that.
But I'm sorry to say that I stopped development of this code as open-source and didn't want to start a war and thus never posted on the pd-list that these objects are now available for a small fee (small concidering the amount of time that went into it) at http://www.nullmedium.de/dev/oggpro/.
aha. I've hit nullmedium & oggpro, but didn't know you where part of it.
actually it's very sad to hear that someone who was doing open source, and great stuff, starts to release binaries only, be it for a small fee or none at all.
i wouldn't like to offend you, but this really means a retro-gression (does this word exist??). you know what I mean.
with the evolution of the open source and the knowledge sharing, I can't really understand that someone can step back again to the "closed" conception.
and you say "small fee considering the amount of time that went into it". then what about pd itself?? much more time and people were and are involved (and each time more i think) and it's still free (gratis) and open.
thanks for reading shönnen tag, r
Olaf
Hallo, B. Bogart hat gesagt: // B. Bogart wrote:
Since versions were freely distributed this does mean that any of us would be free to continue to develop it as a fork from your old free versions? As long as they do not include code from your new non-free versions?
Anyhow just looking for a little clarification.
pdogg as it is in CVS is released as LGPL, so everyone is free to create and distribute modifications as long as they follow that license. I don't know if the license in Olaf's "commercial" version has changed, but as primary author Olaf has every right to change the license for newer versions. However he would not be allowed to include rama's changes into a non-free version unless rama would allow this (which I doubt he would do.)
The actual question for us now is: should we add the new changes into CVS and create a "fork"? IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
(Note: I use the term "non-free" in the Debian sense.)
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
_ __latest track: "scans" _ http://footils.org/cms/show/41
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 17:21 +0200, Frank Barknecht escribió:
Hallo, B. Bogart hat gesagt: // B. Bogart wrote:
Since versions were freely distributed this does mean that any of us would be free to continue to develop it as a fork from your old free versions? As long as they do not include code from your new non-free versions?
Anyhow just looking for a little clarification.
pdogg as it is in CVS is released as LGPL, so everyone is free to create and distribute modifications as long as they follow that license. I don't know if the license in Olaf's "commercial" version has changed, but as primary author Olaf has every right to change the license for newer versions. However he would not be allowed to include rama's changes into a non-free version unless rama would allow this (which I doubt he would do.)
of course i wouldn't allow any of my work, which is all free to use, change, whatever GPL, to be included in any non-free project. however I wonder how it can be controlled. I mean, if any closed-source project would like to steal code from open-source ones, who would be able to avoid that? but for sure this discussion was treated everywhere around, but I have no clue how it would be.
The actual question for us now is: should we add the new changes into CVS and create a "fork"?
actually there are no newer versions of pdogg for around one year or more. and the oggPRO from Olaf is another story, not a new version of pdogg as I understand.
so, correct me if I'm wrong, but any changes introduced into pdogg at this point, wouldn't mean a fork, but just continue it's development. pdogg was orphaned long time ago, isn't it? and as far as I can remember, Olaf said anyone willing to take over its development, could do so.
in the case Olaf was still into the development of pdogg lib, sure it would be a fork if we wanted to introduce changes which were not accepted by him. but in this case, it's just abandoned, waiting for someone(s) to adopt it and keep it on.
what do you think?
IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
hmmm yep, somehow.. but what about thinking the other way round: oggPRO is a fork into non-free!
hasta luego, r
(Note: I use the term "non-free" in the Debian sense.)
Ciao
Hallo, rama hat gesagt: // rama wrote:
of course i wouldn't allow any of my work, which is all free to use, change, whatever GPL, to be included in any non-free project. however I wonder how it can be controlled. I mean, if any closed-source project would like to steal code from open-source ones, who would be able to avoid that?
I'm sure Olaf never would do that.
IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
hmmm yep, somehow.. but what about thinking the other way round: oggPRO is a fork into non-free!
Yep, somehow. ;)
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
_ __latest track: "scans" _ http://footils.org/cms/show/41
BTW, does anybody know this nice PDF document?
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/dafx03/proceedings/pdfs/dafx66.pdf
On page 3 it says: "The pdogg library initially written by Olaf Matthes4 was extended and threading was improved so that the external now is capable of transmitting and receiving multichannel streams in high-quality."
Looks like another fork...
Olaf
Hi Olaf, hi all,
BTW, does anybody know this nice PDF document?
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/dafx03/proceedings/pdfs/dafx66.pdf
On page 3 it says: "The pdogg library initially written by Olaf Matthes4 was extended and threading was improved so that the external now is capable of transmitting and receiving multichannel streams in high-quality."
Looks like another fork...
I didn't know the document but it must be my additions to pdogg that were necessary for stable multi-channel streaming some time ago. It wasn't meant as a fork, i remember even writing to you about the changes... i think back then when i worked on the pdogg code i wasn't aware that there were actually two incarnations of the objects.
hmmm, time passes too quickly, best greetings, Thomas
Thomas Grill wrote:
Hi Olaf, hi all,
BTW, does anybody know this nice PDF document?
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/dafx03/proceedings/pdfs/dafx66.pdf
On page 3 it says: "The pdogg library initially written by Olaf Matthes4 was extended and threading was improved so that the external now is capable of transmitting and receiving multichannel streams in high-quality."
Looks like another fork...
I didn't know the document but it must be my additions to pdogg that were necessary for stable multi-channel streaming some time ago. It wasn't meant as a fork, i remember even writing to you about the changes...
I remember I once emailed Winfried Ritsch asking about that changes and whether they would release their code. His answer was something like 'not right now, but maybe in the future'. However I can't reconstruct how much they (or maybe it was you) changed. I also remember you once said you couldn't decide whether or not to release the changes (or give them to me), so there must be more than just stable multichannel support. But this is plain guessing since we all forgot what really happened....
Ah, and you said you couldn't figure out how my oggamp~ was working so you made your own one.... another fork? :-)
i think back then when i worked on the pdogg code i wasn't aware that there were actually two incarnations of the objects.
By that time I was still working on the original pdogg, I think.
Olaf
Ah, and you said you couldn't figure out how my oggamp~ was working so you made your own one.... another fork? :-)
Oh, true, i remember now - it's not a fork but a new implementation. That's because it was contract work and it was faster to write it from scratch than debug the existing code. I think, WInfried asked me if we should put it on SF - it seems that hasn't happened yet. Well - i had difficulties finding an unambiguous name.
all the best, Thomas
hi thomas, olaf, all
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 23:02 +0200, Thomas Grill escribió:
Ah, and you said you couldn't figure out how my oggamp~ was working so you made your own one.... another fork? :-)
Oh, true, i remember now - it's not a fork but a new implementation.
from my ignorance: what's the difference between a fork and a new implementation? as long as any changes to any software are not merged back into the parent (or can we say 'upstream' release?) I understand this is a fork, which means a breach opened into two different implementations published(?) under different names(?)
That's because it was contract work and it was faster to write it from scratch than debug the existing code.
sorry to come into this, maybe is not appropiate as I don't know (and don't have to know) the internals on what happened here, but, was the pdogg code so, let's say 'bad', as to not use it? it seems like contract works several times break apart with the concept of collaborativeness...
I think, WInfried asked me if we should put it on SF - it seems that hasn't happened yet. Well - i had difficulties finding an unambiguous name.
sorry but, Thomas, this doesn't sound as a reasonable reason for not publishing back as open-source if there was at least the intention.
sounds more like a crash against Olaf's work which would block the publishing of this new creature.
however, we try to fix issues, not to add more, so it would be helpful to have that code publicly available and somehow decide if it's worth to keep on developing which implementation. or?
greetings rama
all the best, Thomas
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi rama,
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 23:02 +0200, Thomas Grill escribió:
Ah, and you said you couldn't figure out how my oggamp~ was working so you made your own one.... another fork? :-)
Oh, true, i remember now - it's not a fork but a new implementation.
from my ignorance: what's the difference between a fork and a new implementation? as long as any changes to any software are not merged back into the parent (or can we say 'upstream' release?) I understand this is a fork, which means a breach opened into two different implementations published(?) under different names(?)
there seems to be a misunderstanding: as stated, i didn't take the pdogg code at all. Hence it can't be named a branch or fork. I simply made a new object from scratch, ignoring the pdogg code.
That's because it was contract work and it was faster to write it from scratch than debug the existing code.
sorry to come into this, maybe is not appropiate as I don't know (and don't have to know) the internals on what happened here, but, was the pdogg code so, let's say 'bad', as to not use it? it seems like contract works several times break apart with the concept of collaborativeness...
it has nothing to do with collaboration. I needed an object to work for a given project, no matter if there already was one with similar features or not. I wouldn't say that the original code was bad, i simply didn't understand the mechanics good enough to be able to fix some bugs or implement features that i needed in reasonable time.
I think, WInfried asked me if we should put it on SF - it seems that hasn't happened yet. Well - i had difficulties finding an unambiguous name.
sorry but, Thomas, this doesn't sound as a reasonable reason for not publishing back as open-source if there was at least the intention.
sorry, it's not publishing back - it's publishing at the first place. Please leave people the freedom whether they want to publish their code or not. It takes time to prepare a release or maintain code thas has already been published. Trust me, i know what i'm talking about.
sounds more like a crash against Olaf's work which would block the publishing of this new creature.
sorry, can't follow.
Your idealism is very valuable, but it makes me angry that you argue with false arguments against people that already have tons of code released open-source and actively maintain it. I'm already tired of this open vs. closed source discussion, which is really useless in this context.
best future, Thomas
hi Thomas, all,
El vie, 27-05-2005 a las 08:57 +0200, Thomas Grill escribió:
[...]
there seems to be a misunderstanding: as stated, i didn't take the pdogg code at all. Hence it can't be named a branch or fork. I simply made a new object from scratch, ignoring the pdogg code.
you're right, I introduced the confusion. it's clear this was not a fork. apologies then.
I also understand and respect the other points you've stated.
[...]
sounds more like a crash against Olaf's work which would block the publishing of this new creature.
sorry, can't follow.
Your idealism is very valuable, but it makes me angry that you argue with false arguments against people that already have tons of code released open-source and actively maintain it.
I don't argue against anyone.
But I argue, that's true. Just because after using pdogg for quite long time, and fixing some bugs, and after publishing back (unofficially yet) it came up this part of the thread between Olaf and you (Thomas) where it turned to be that there is another ogg external, but we didn't even know if was 'out' there. So it just feels a bit obscure to someone somehow trying to take over the development of it.
Now I will have a look at your external to check if it makes sense to continue pdogg or what to do.
I'm already tired of this open vs. closed source discussion, which is really useless in this context.
it's ok, sorry if I bugged you, we can leave the open vs. closed source discussion behind.
the important thing now, from my pov, would be to achieve a reasonable improved version of ogg implementation within pd.
as I've fixed some useful (for me and sure some others) stuff in pdogg, but still some other part seems not clear for me, as my PD with kernel 2.6 still freezes while using oggread~ or oggamp~ for example :/
so my changes are not enough. I will go through your extern in a while.
thanks for the wide patience best present, Ramiro.
best future, Thomas
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thomas Grill wrote:
Ah, and you said you couldn't figure out how my oggamp~ was working so you made your own one.... another fork? :-)
Oh, true, i remember now - it's not a fork but a new implementation. That's because it was contract work and it was faster to write it from scratch than debug the existing code. I think, WInfried asked me if we should put it on SF - it seems that hasn't happened yet. Well - i had difficulties finding an unambiguous name.
it is already in the CVS under externals/iem/iemstream.
i think it still has the old (imo: bad) name "amp~" and i am not sure, whether the build process works (this is: whether it really builds an "amp~.pd_linux" or a "iemstream~.pd_linux"....)
mfg.asd.r IOhannes
it is already in the CVS under externals/iem/iemstream.
i think it still has the old (imo: bad) name "amp~" and i am not sure, whether the build process works (this is: whether it really builds an "amp~.pd_linux" or a "iemstream~.pd_linux"....)
i just had a glance into the repository and it seems it will not compile as it is. I hope that i can fix that shortly.
best greetings, Thomas
El dom, 29-05-2005 a las 23:32 +0200, Thomas Grill escribió:
it is already in the CVS under externals/iem/iemstream.
i think it still has the old (imo: bad) name "amp~" and i am not sure, whether the build process works (this is: whether it really builds an "amp~.pd_linux" or a "iemstream~.pd_linux"....)
i just had a glance into the repository and it seems it will not compile as it is. I hope that i can fix that shortly.
best greetings, Thomas
super danke for checking it!
anyway, here it compiled straight away (just fresh co'ed CVS) and seems to work with pd -nosound at least ;) as I'm running an outgoing stream at the moment and can't stop pd right now.
the only comment is it is just the ogg stream receiver, my C++ knowledge is quite null in order to face the development of the resting ogg 'family'
so I wonder how to proceed...
any tips welcome.
in the case it makes sense to keep on with pdogg, any help would be very much appreciated.
until later, r
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 19:25 +0200, Frank Barknecht escribió:
Hallo, rama hat gesagt: // rama wrote:
of course i wouldn't allow any of my work, which is all free to use, change, whatever GPL, to be included in any non-free project. however I wonder how it can be controlled. I mean, if any closed-source project would like to steal code from open-source ones, who would be able to avoid that?
I'm sure Olaf never would do that.
sorry, didn't want to mean that, was not thinking that way... i dripped a bit away thinking in more general terms, so it was quite out of the point.
at the same time i want to thank a lot to the open source from Olaf's as I've learnt a lot from it about dealing with externals code and more (C, ogg internals..) that's why i expressed as first feeling "it's sad to hear..." that good brains can still stay without releasing their code, so their knowledge.
i can understand contractual conditions, but I would reject project which forbid me to release them 'open'. but don't want to to flame on. i also know what's to not have for buying bread as Olaf mentioned previously on this thread.
best, r
IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
hmmm yep, somehow.. but what about thinking the other way round: oggPRO is a fork into non-free!
Yep, somehow. ;)
Ciao
rama wrote:
actually there are no newer versions of pdogg for around one year or more. and the oggPRO from Olaf is another story, not a new version of pdogg as I understand.
Well, of course the underlying basics are the same but it does several things in quite a different way and implements a lot of new features. I don't know how to decide whether its an updated pdogg or a new thing.
so, correct me if I'm wrong, but any changes introduced into pdogg at this point, wouldn't mean a fork, but just continue it's development. pdogg was orphaned long time ago, isn't it? and as far as I can remember, Olaf said anyone willing to take over its development, could do so.
For me it's all right if you keep on developing pdogg. It's a free thing (LGPL) and will ever be a free thing. Feel free to fix the bugs or even implement the new features that are in the oggPRO versions.
IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
hmmm yep, somehow.. but what about thinking the other way round: oggPRO is a fork into non-free!,
In fact oggPRO is the fork. - Maybe I should tell the whole story how this fork came into existance: Originally I just made the Max/MSP ports (under a new license) of the pdogg objects and then more or less stopped using (and developing) the Pd versions. Over the years more and more bugs were fixed, new features implemented and several things changed quite dramatically. After a while a user was asking for Pd versions of oggcast~ and oggamp~ with some of the new features (that were not in the pdogg versions) so I made a backport of the new code to Pd.
Olaf
El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 19:42 +0200, Olaf Matthes escribió:
rama wrote:
so, correct me if I'm wrong, but any changes introduced into pdogg at this point, wouldn't mean a fork, but just continue it's development. pdogg was orphaned long time ago, isn't it? and as far as I can remember, Olaf said anyone willing to take over its development, could do so.
For me it's all right if you keep on developing pdogg. It's a free thing (LGPL) and will ever be a free thing. Feel free to fix the bugs or even implement the new features that are in the oggPRO versions.
alright. but, hoping not to be inappropiate, shall shortly ask if you plan to release the code after some 'point'? maybe your clients will not be very happy, but I'm only wondering ways..
IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
hmmm yep, somehow.. but what about thinking the other way round: oggPRO is a fork into non-free!,
In fact oggPRO is the fork. - Maybe I should tell the whole story how this fork came into existance: Originally I just made the Max/MSP ports (under a new license) of the pdogg objects and then more or less stopped using (and developing) the Pd versions.
:(
Over the years more and more bugs were fixed, new features implemented and several things changed quite dramatically. After a while a user was asking for Pd versions of oggcast~ and oggamp~ with some of the new features (that were not in the pdogg versions) so I made a backport of the new code to Pd.
i would love you forever if you return to pd some day, i appreciate you work, and I'm using pdogg a lot (a lot!)
i personally don't like commercial / closed-source software, and it's not about being afraid of my bank account number being filed into anyone's database. they would get a sad surprise ;)
ramiro.
Olaf
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
rama wrote:
Over the years more and more bugs were fixed, new features implemented and several things changed quite dramatically. After a while a user was asking for Pd versions of oggcast~ and oggamp~ with some of the new features (that were not in the pdogg versions) so I made a backport of the new code to Pd.
i would love you forever if you return to pd some day, i appreciate you work, and I'm using pdogg a lot (a lot!)
I really don't understand your point. It's extra work for me to make (and maintain) Pd versions of my Max externals. But as long as people don't like the fact that the Pd versions are released under the same license as the Max versions I should probably stop to do that at all. I always thought it would be better to have a non-open external than no external at all. That way at least people who don't care whether they are allowed to read the source code can profit from it.
To be honest, one reason for me to use Max much more often than Pd (and a reason for developing for Max, not Pd) is the attitude of the users. Max users can accept the fact that not everything is free (as in beer or in freedom or both). (Sorry, I don't want to say that all Pd users in general can't do that, but there are a lot who pretend they can't.) In the end this strict view on the open vs. closed debate is also bad for Pd because it prevents some things from being coded (or released) at all.
Olaf
Le 27 Mai 2005 05:30, Olaf Matthes a écrit :
In the end this strict view on the open vs. closed debate is also bad for Pd because it prevents some things from being coded (or released) at all.
Just a reminder: PD is released with a BSD style licence, so people can fork it and close the source, for any reason and any use. Externals can be coded for custom jobs and never get released, or released as proprietary, There's quite a few options, depending on business models. As many on this list, I would love to use and develop PD much more than I do, but we all need to survive using the best strategies available. I hope that the PD community will become more "business oriented" while respecting its "freedom of speech". If this is what the community wants, then it will find ways to finance and help developpers to code and release their creations using free licenses. But first we should let developpers do whatever they (legally) can to survive honorably. I prefer to code web sites than release non-free PD externals, but that's my business. -- Marc
El vie, 27-05-2005 a las 11:30 +0200, Olaf Matthes escribió:
rama wrote:
Over the years more and more bugs were fixed, new features implemented and several things changed quite dramatically. After a while a user was asking for Pd versions of oggcast~ and oggamp~ with some of the new features (that were not in the pdogg versions) so I made a backport of the new code to Pd.
i would love you forever if you return to pd some day, i appreciate you work, and I'm using pdogg a lot (a lot!)
I really don't understand your point. It's extra work for me to make (and maintain) Pd versions of my Max externals. But as long as people don't like the fact that the Pd versions are released under the same license as the Max versions I should probably stop to do that at all. I always thought it would be better to have a non-open external than no external at all. That way at least people who don't care whether they are allowed to read the source code can profit from it.
it's ok, we don't understand each other's point i think. but here there are personal opinions about the whole thing. I don't like Mac and Windows even less. and closed source as well. But that's personal probably, so we can skip this from discussion.
have fun Rama
To be honest, one reason for me to use Max much more often than Pd (and a reason for developing for Max, not Pd) is the attitude of the users. Max users can accept the fact that not everything is free (as in beer or in freedom or both). (Sorry, I don't want to say that all Pd users in general can't do that, but there are a lot who pretend they can't.) In the end this strict view on the open vs. closed debate is also bad for Pd because it prevents some things from being coded (or released) at all.
Olaf
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi Frank,
As I recall all projects on source-forge have to be GPL, so the fork would then be a take-over of what is currently in CVS and the "non-free" versions would live somewhere else?
I hope there are some people still willing to support the free versions.
B>
Frank Barknecht wrote:
The actual question for us now is: should we add the new changes into CVS and create a "fork"? IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.
(Note: I use the term "non-free" in the Debian sense.)
Ciao
Hallo, B. Bogart hat gesagt: // B. Bogart wrote:
As I recall all projects on source-forge have to be GPL,
Not all projects have to be GPL (e.g. Pd isn't) but all SF projects need to follow a free license. Details should be under "Site Docs" on sf.net
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
_ __latest track: "scans" _ http://footils.org/cms/show/41
B. Bogart wrote:
Hey Olaf,
At first I was suprised that the MAX versions of the ogg stuff were non-free, as a MAXer had mentioned. Now all versions are non-free?
No, the pdogg stuff still is free but no longer supported by me.
How does this relate to the work you have been doing for Zack Settle for Open Territories? (Which has to be GPL).
They are using pdogg, not oggPRO. The netsend~ stuff is GPL.
Are you still planning on releasing some sub-portion of your work under the GPL (as Thomas Grill is doing?)
Since versions were freely distributed this does mean that any of us would be free to continue to develop it as a fork from your old free versions? As long as they do not include code from your new non-free versions?
As Frank already said, since the 'original' versions were released under LGPL you are stil allowed to use them, modify them and so on (still following the LGPL license terms). The 'new' non-free stuff is released under a different license.
Olaf
-
B. Bogart -
Frank Barknecht -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Marc Lavallée -
Olaf Matthes -
rama -
Thomas Grill