On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 23:48:31 -0700, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
>On the one hand, the GPL can make it difficult for us to write software
>that interconnects with commercial technology. This isn't always the
>case - note that while the Linux kernel is GPL, there are many
>proprietary
>drivers (e.g. NVIDIA) that are required in order to access certain
>hardware, and while the FSF probably isn't as happy as they'd like to
>be,
>users are getting what their practical needs met without any licenses
>being violated. But clearly it doesn't always work out - as we
>discovered when trying to integrate strict GPL and non-free code.
And we're getting that right now.
Eric (and Steve I suppose) tend to forget that VST plugins do not run on
free systems. There are certain barriers people are willing to cross and
this problem here, and that's what this looks like to the non-political
folks, puts one up to exclude non-free software on non-free systems. On
those systems Audacity is thus isolated further and I don't care if it's
political or not. It's plain impractical, because no million monkeys in the
universe are going to come up with that kind of resource for Windows and
MacOSX in the near future.
Not the best call upon the GPL if you ask me. It bites hard.
>On the other hand, the use of the GPL encourages contributions and
>code sharing like no other license. The GPL makes it possible for
>Rob Leslie and company to release libmad, an excellent MP3 decoder,
>for free, without sacrificing potential licensing revenue from the
>enormous work they put into it. If Audacity used a BSD license,
>we would not be able to use libmad. Also I wonder if so many people
>would have been willing to contribute to Audacity if it used a
>different license - maybe so, but I'm not sure; with almost any
>other license it's too easy for your work to get "stolen" and
>incorporated into a commercial product.
The GPL is wonderful. Put something in, nobody can lock it up. When you do
lock people out is the point, which I guess will have to pan out at some
point in the future. Today audio standard interoparability does not appear
to matter all that much in the grand sheme.
>> Now I'll stop ranting and move on.
Thought I had. Guess I didn't.
>> The docs are still not finished.
>
>Please let us know how we can help! Feel free to delegate
>responsibility,
>including writing or editing sections of the manual, recapturing
>screenshots, etc. - just make a list of things that you'd like someone
>else to do and we'll get volunteers.
>
>Looking at the docs, I don't think that you get enough credit - I think
>that your name should be listed on the front page, since you're by far
>the primary author.
Up to now we've had two contributors, you and myself. I wouldn't mind as
being put down as the "Leading Manual author", 'cause you do editing and
the reference manual too.
I'm concerned about the tutorials.
Do we have training projects ? Why not put some more together then. We'll
pack them up with OGG for the audio and ZIP it all up. No more than a
megabyte or two perhaps.
What projects would folks here suggest ? Please spill your beans right
here.
My suggestions(which I can produce too) are:
Voiceover editing
vocal recording full of mistakes must be edited
towards a given target version.
Music Cut
A three minute song must be edited down to one minute.
Tony
|
