Slashdot Mirror
Lightworks Video Editor To Go Open Source
Art3x writes "EditShare will release its video editor as open source this summer. Lightworks handles high-definition media, DPX, and RED, shares projects with Final Cut Pro and Avid, and was recently used by Academy-award-winning editor Thelma Schoonmaker on Shutter Island. Introduced in 1989 and bought by EditShare last year, it 'has come from over one million hours of software development,' says EditShare's James Richings. But he says releasing the source will 'generate concepts and capabilities never seen before. I expect that the Lightworks Open Source initiative will transform not only the technology, but also the opinions on what a professional editing tool can achieve.'" From the press release's description, it sounds like the "open source" phase will follow a period of free-as-in-beer downloading.
People can use instead of their stolen Adobe Premiere programs.
Clearly not oh trollish one.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
And we all know what runaway success that GIMP is.
It works for me...
Anyway, Blender would be a better analogy - a closed-source tool that later went open-source. I bet if you tried real hard you could even find fault with Blender, somewhere...
Bow-ties are cool.
You can edit RED with the open source version, but you have to pay if you want to edit blue or green.
Are they going to continue to provide developers and push some form of direction?
From what I've seen the only successful OS projects are grown from scratch or 50%+ maintained by a single company.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Finding fault with Blender is* easy, and for much the same reason people find fault with GIMP -- the UI is something you either love, or absolutely despise, with very little in between.
*Referring to Blender circa 2003, so this may need to be changed to "was". The UI was bad enough at the time to make me not look back.
I wonder if people will now grumble more about UI of Blender or about this Lightworks thing (seems to be fairly advanced, with operation built around hardware peripheral, so it's bound to be "weird" and "hard"...)
Still, can't wait (and you'd think /. would mostly agree)...one step closer to having everything I need under open OS.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Yay! Yet another open source project that will likely stagnate at best, or (more likely) will end up with a million different forks due to all of the inevitable bickering about which direction development should go. The only way to prevent this would be some kind of centralized development effort, and I'm not holding my breath. Besides, if they've decided to go the open source route, EditShare has effectively acknowledged that the tool provides them little commercial value, and that in turn implies that the company more or less considers the tool to be dead.
I'm really excited about this move. The first editing system I ever experienced when I was young was a Lightworks/Heavyworks system. My dad (a film editor, now director) loves the Lightworks systems due to their natural and intuitive control systems. I still have an old Lightwave controller sitting around that I've thought about hacking to work with the Avid.
Currently we work on Avid Media Composer, since it remains the only true pro-level editing software. Final Cut has it's pros but, at least to me, it's more for video editing (by which I mean not sourcing or finishing to film) and smaller projects (promos, commercials, shorts). If you want to cut a feature film - you use Avid. I have arguments with co-workers about FCP versus Avid but we usually arrive at the agreement that Avid is simply the standard to which all other systems are currently judged.
With the open sourcing of Lightworks I can only hope that the best of modern systems like Avid and FCP can be integrated with the very intuitive Lightworks way of working. At the very least, I hope it scares Avid and Apple at least enough to make them fix some of the problems that currently exist with their systems. More competition is always better for the end user.
I read the press release and even visited the website. I can't find ANYTHING that reveals the system requirements for this software. Is it a Mac application? Windows? Linux? If it won't run on my OS of choice, why should I care about it?
This appears to be an application that was never available in retail channels in the first place and has no market share or brand equity.
Brewing beer isn't free. Unless you already own the equipment and ingredients, buying them can run you over $150 per batch. Then you have to count the time-consuming process of sanitizing the equipment, actually brewing beer, bottling it (hope you saved those bottles too!), and then drinking it before it expires (unless you can find some way to pasteurize it). However, if you do decide to do it, it is a very rewarding experience. Not free... but rewarding.
Unlike porn, which yada yada rimshot hey-ooh!
'Free as in beer' is actually meant as 'free as in free beer'.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Beer is free when someone gives it away. You get the liquid but not the recipe. That's the point of the analogy.
Translation:
It sounds like the "open source" hype, in combination with a free-as-in-beer download, will win massive marketshare, followed by the release of a "premium" version to capitalize on that.
Note that this works whether it's released as (netscape-style) open-source, or whether that promise fades away -- as long as everybody got their free copy, and knows that open-source is "around the corner", you can go quite a long way without a shred of code released.
Well, the software has been around since 1989!
It almost makes sense :D
For the past few years, all my video splicing has been done with the mediocre editor built into Blender. Which works well enough for a feature built into a 3D modeling/rendering program, but is far less usable and efficient than any dedicated one.
Maybe thats just me, but does anyone see any system requirements on anywhere? I read the press release, looked all over the company website and still could not find anything even remotely looking like system requirements anywhere.
I would guess that there is a Windows version and since it seems to integrate with Final Cut Pro, a Mac version seems likely as well, but there is no way to be sure and strangely, I could not find anything.
Also, it seems that Lightworks was only recently (August 2009) acquired by EditShare. Making it OpenSource now could mean that EditShare maybe was not able or willing to continue developing, selling and supporting the program and now tries to salvage something by open-sourcing it, hoping the community will pick up the slack.
ALL the 3D graphics editor UIs I've seen suck - 3ds Max, Maya, Lightwave, etc., take your pick. 3D editing isn't something you dabble at. Either you take the time to learn the tool, or you don't get anything done. It's a shame, I know I'd like to dabble at it.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Dude, get over yourself. Yeah, C and C++ are not ideal in every way; but no language is. They are still quite useful. There is a lot of good software out there written in them (such as Firefox itself).
If you really want to contribute, and help fix said security issues, it would behoove you to learn them. Otherwise, I'd recommend finding a project written in the language of your choice, and contributing to that. It doesn't make that much sense to complain about a project not being in your favorite language and asking for an extension mechanism using another language just so you can contribute.
I'll push it a little further by saying. What really makes Richard Stallman the true genius behind Linux is not his code or gcc, but the little bit of virus he put in every GPL.
How's that sound?
Deleted
I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design [...] and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.
No problem. All Lightwave development is done in LOGO. Just tell the turtle what you want it to do.
This ain't rocket surgery.
If you wanna sum up, then you should sum up the times the license is used. And in the long run GPL might come ahead as it will always keep scoring 3 points whereas BSD will score 0 points once it gets closed by some vendor.
Or instead of thinking what the license gives to the developer, maybe we should give more value on what it gives to the user. With GPL the user will always get the same rights as the developer had, with BSD they can be taken away.
Also BSD does have nasty limitations, it forces me to retain a copyright notice and other things. Public domain type of license could contain even more freedom.
- Raynet --> .
If your beer is expiring try making a different beer. Many beers fair well with years of storage and no pasteurization.
But I refuse to ever use C/C++, because I consider its outdated design to be the cause of pretty much every security exploit out there, and its inelegance and programming inefficiency to be a pain to my brain.
I bet you were told you were special when you were a kid right?
the UI is something you either love, or absolutely despise, with very little in between.
Yeah, but that's hardly the exclusive domain of open source software; plenty of commercial apps over the years have had poor interfaces, and/or workflow, and/or functionality.
There's nothing wrong with simply learning a clunky UI, warts and all. The warts are a lot less obtrusive once you get used to them. I'm not saying there is an excuse for crappy design, I'm saying that familiarity can often make up for it.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
This is what date stamps and the way back machine are for.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Chrome is also a bad example. It's based on WebKit, and portions of WebKit are under the LGPL. I doubt they've stripped out and rewritten all of WebCore.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
> Why do you label him a "troll"? What he says is absolutely true; the MIT and BSD licenses are basically the most-free licenses around.
And pointless.
They could have merely put the source in the public domain if they wanted things to be a free-for-all.
The main benefit of a non Mad Max approach to Free Software is that it gives more developers a better incentive to contribute as they can be sure that their contributions won't be gobbled up by some company and then used against them. People like to forget that this is why the GPL came about in the first place. RMS didn't just decided to go on an ideological tear. His own contributors gave him grief when they found out that their work had been commercialized without their knowledge.
The GPL is a result of a failure of more open licensing.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
LLVM: nice idea, but no one is using it.
Or, nice idea, implemented in a terrible language. Could have been much nicer if it had been designed along the lines of COLA/OMeta. And - that's a wild guess, though - much, much shorter.
Ezekiel 23:20
Oh, I know, although at the time Maya was much more usable *for me*. The fact they had a free (beer) version (watermarked images) was good enough since I was just doing some concept art. Now that Autodesk got their hands on it, I have no doubt they've ruined both the UI and the free version as well.
Yet that doesn't excuse the fact that it is (or was, anyway -- as I said, it's been years since I've looked at Blender) valid criticism of it, either.
And yes, there IS something wrong with learning a clunky UI, IF there's a better solution available. In my case there was, and I would have been stupid to use the worse solution simply because it was open source. Then again, I try to use the best tool for the job, instead of being blinded by any ideology; if that best tool is open source, great. If not, that's fine with me too.
I only found a press release written in marketingdroidese claiming a lot of things, mostly vapid. However I found no publicly available source code. Nor even what the released source code will actually be, since the press release is so vacuous you cannot understand which parts of the application will be open source, or if it is the whole application. Nor even in which license the source code is supposed to be released in.
FWIW, Blender's interface isn't all that bad now I think. It's not necessarily "intuitive", but they have a good set of tutorials and user community so you can get up to speed. What it lacks in intuition, it makes up for in being efficient to navigate once you do know it (i.e. there's a hotkey combo for everything...)
Still, for precision/engineering work, it is lacking some power compared to a dedicated product like SolidWorks... different target audiences though, I'm probably in a rare intersection.
God, I hope it goes the way of Gimp and Blender.
They're free, they work, and they're *good enough* for me. I.e., if I want/need something more, I'll fork out the money and buy it. I did this with *gasp* Adobe Premiere because the freely available tools were either buggy or lacked the features I needed.
Clearly not oh trollish one. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
I don't know how I will modded but GPL is "NOT" for end users. It does not affect end users one bit. End users do not compile or care to compile code.
If you are contributing to the codebase then you are no longer wearing the "end user" hat but a "contributing developer" hat.
BSD and MIT license grant more rights to third party developers. Full stop. GPL places some restrictions on release of binaries from code modifications which require publishing of code changes if a binary is released to the general public. Full Stop. Let's stop trying redefine terms like "freedom" and just spell out the differences.
GPL takes the approach of enforcement of rules if you want to play while BSD relies on good will and a desire to co-operate. One requires coercion and the other is completely voluntary.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Your comment is beyond awesome. That comment makes the FSM smile upon you and will get you closer to an eternity spent in the shadow of the beer volcano and within walking distance of the stripper factory.
"...they can be sure that their contributions won't be gobbled up by some company and then used against them."
How so? Used against them in what way?
"His own contributors gave him grief when they found out that their work had been commercialized without their knowledge."
I won't be looking to you for any history lessons. ;)
Thanks. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
This ain't rocket surgery.
On the one hand you have LLVM taking over the compiler tech world like no other project in the history of the field.
Making shit up or you got a citation for that?
Even the projects built with llvm page shows nothing all that interesting.
On the one hand you have LLVM taking over the compiler tech world like no other project in the history of the field.
Uhhm, sorry? I see no such thing. The field of programming language compilers is diverse and LLVM most certainly does not fit all scenarios, and perhaps not even all languages. (One of my friends tried to implement some sort of Scheme-like system language, he had rather strict requirements and he found the LLVM IR model deficient - tail calls, continuation, type system...I can't remember now what exactly was the problem, it was a few years ago - but perhaps they have extended it by now.)
Ezekiel 23:20
Looks like you'll have to register to get more info :
http://www.editshare.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=208
Clearly, the freedom you get with the MIT and BSD licenses exceeds that which you'd get from the GPL.
It's not a different amount of freedom, it's a different quality, with different goals. BSD is "I want everyone to use this". GPL is "I want everyone to get the updates". We can argue about which one is better all day, but unless you understand both philosophies, it's pointless.
BSD takes into account the fact that all software can be better by using known good code. GPL takes into account the fact that writing good software is not about the code but the process that leads to the code.
buying them can run you over $150 per batch.
Depends on your ingredients and batch size. I just picked up a 50lb sack of 2-row malt for $40US, and have another on backorder. Also picked up a couple vials of White Labs yeast at half off (no, they aren't expired). I just bought 3lbs of hops (1 x Galena, 1 x Willamette, 1 x Cascade) for $40US including shipping. Propane tank fillup was $15. I'll be brewing 10 gallon batches (sorry, 38 liters for you non-imperial types, or a little over 4 cases for those bad at unit conversion and division) at a cost of ~$40 for ingredients & consumables, or about $0.50 per pint. Compare that to $4/pint at the local pub.
Unless you already own the equipment
Right. I gave up trying to cost-justify that stuff a long time ago. No one ever really owns enough equipment anyway. There's always something else you need. It's part of the fun, actually.
Then you have to count the time-consuming process of sanitizing the equipment
Ugh. The primary reason I don't brew more often.
actually brewing beer
That's the fun part! Well, one of the fun parts, anyway.
bottling it
Corny kegs, baby. Best brewing investment ever.
then drinking it before it expires
Sufficient alcohol content/hopping levels should keep infections away, if you've sanitized properly. Of course, if you're worried about consuming it before it passes peak flavor, invite friends over for a party. I promise you, they will show. However, I tend to find the old maxim true: The homebrew is ready when it's gone.
However, if you do decide to do it, it is a very rewarding experience.
Cheers to that. I take it you brew?
* Apologia pro vita sua: People homebrew for the same reasons that people use or develop FOSS. Some people are just out to save a buck. Others feel that the mass-produced and mass-marketed products are often lacking in quality, or perhaps they feel that the niche products are often pricey and have an artificially snobby following. Some do it because they realize they can produce something equal or superior (for their tastes and purposes, at least) to commercially available alternatives. Some do it just because they love doing it, they love the process of creation. Brewers usually share their creations freely with others and simply ask for a smile and tiny bit of gratitude in return. Many are content to buy basic equipment and a set of ingredients and combine them as instructed, like someone might download and use Ubuntu without ever peeking under the hood. Or, a brewer might create and refine their own recipes then share them with the world, like a developer might write applications or drivers to suit themselves before releasing it to others who might use it or improve it.
They often take pride in personally building or tweaking their hardware, whether it is a 2 x quad core server with 32 GB RAM repurposed into a badass desktop (the fans make it sound like a Cessna taking off, but who the hell cares), or a custom-welded brewstand with 3 x 170,000btu propane burners (sounds like a jet taking off - freakin' glorious).
Commercial brewers jealously guard their recipes and processes. Homebrewers love to share insights and techniques. As a matter of fact, once you get one talking you can barely shut them up (case and point). Homebrewers believe that knowledge is power, and should be shared freely. In fact, they not only personify the free as in beer / free as in speech metaphor, they improve on it, since they are generally happy to freely provide the recipe for the beer just poured you, making a hybrid case of free as in speech and beer.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I did this with *gasp* Adobe Premiere because the freely available tools were either buggy or lacked the features I needed.
Same reason I got Sony Vegas. I had something that needed to be done. Blender was originally a professional in-house tool so its usefulness was already proven when it ventured into open source. Hopefully the same happens for Lightworks. Rik
If only I had mod points, you'd definitely get some
I have some wine making supplies can I brew small batches of beer in that?
What would be a good start?
I would prefer to start with extract as I lack the equipment for all grain brewing.
> What a bunch of retards.
>
> Do you GNU idiots actually think anyone is falling for your lame attempts at word games to cover up your shitty viral license?
I was thinking the exact same thing about you lot that have a notion of "freedom" that neglects human nature.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
OSX is a bad example because you need to use highly proprietary software to get anything out of it.
It's not like anyone uses OSX for the BSD.
BSD just enabled Apple to get the underside of the OS for free.
Bring the iphone/ipad into the picture and it only gets worse.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
FYI. I consider Haskell my favorite language. So coming up to an elitist like me, by using elitism... not such a great idea... ;))
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I'm not sure when the last time you checked was - but Blender 2.5 is under heavy development at the moment - a revamped GUI is one of the major features. Also worth noting is that the GUI is written in Python and is detached from the backend Model-View style. It is highly customisable now - and the default looks and works well. You'd be happy to know that fully customizable keyboard shortcuts are also available - with presets.
The Durian team (CC movie by the Blender Institute) is a mix of the best Blender Artists working with the best Blender programmers - makes for startling progress and practical workflow.
Go have a look at a current Blender build from Graphicall.org - I think you'll be surprised. Let me know! =)
It's entirely clear from the press release that they have no intention whatsoever of opensourcing the "feature rich underlying technology" of the "NLE 's core engine".
This is the same sort of thing that Xara tried to pull... using the open source community to add additional power and functionality that all ultimately still depended on a proprietary close-source rendering engine. That went well!
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
OSX- used by no one in the enterprise and pointless as a server OS
But has more than 5x the overall share of Linux, and makes up a disproportionately large percentage of the pro media market.
Chrome: a browser with no marketshare, even opera is more popular
I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but Opera isn't more popular than Chrome. A more sensible argument would have been pointing out the the rendering engine is GPL.
LLVM: nice idea, but no one is using it.
Apple is heading the development of LLVM/CLANG and is very much using it, the free BSDs are all working to move over to it (FreeBSD is about 80-90% there last I heard). Others will follow suite.
Though I could say the same about what it's aiming to replace; nobody really uses GCC either, the BSDs are all moving to PCC/LLVM, Apple is moving to LLVM, MSVC sees the most use on Windows systems, Sun Studio sees the most use on Sparc systems, ICC on Itanic, GCC is only really significant on Linux, and less than 1% of the market uses that.
I'd like to throw in that the most deployed Unix system (SFU/SUA) is BSD derived as well.
Apache is under the BSD-like Apache license, as are Derby, Catalina and Tomcat/Jakarta.
PHP is under the BSD-like PHP license.
PostgreSQL is under a BSD-like license.
SQLite is public domain, and thus closer to BSD than GPL.
Firefox is tri-licensed, but people like to forget about the other two licensing options.
GlassFish, the j2ee referrence implementation is under CDDL.
Mono, RoR, XWindows and Lua are MIT-licensed.
That's just off the top of my head.
You will also need:
You can get prepackaged ingredient kits or order a la carte. For $30 - $45US, you should be able to get a kit that contains the following, which should be all you need to brew 5 gallons of beer:
There are homebrew books that are helpful in figuring out what to do and how to do it. In my experience, This is one of the best out there, and I highly recommend it for brewers of all levels. Fortunately, there is a huge amount of excellent info freely available on the internet. (Google, as always, is your friend)
The outdated look of hbd.org is misleading - you'd never know that it holds an excellent beer recipe development tool (click on "Spreadsheet") and recipe database.
Forums worth checking out:
http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/
Good luck to you, and enjoy!
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
One of my friends tried to implement some sort of Scheme-like system language, he had rather strict requirements and he found the LLVM IR model deficient - tail calls, continuation, type system...I can't remember now what exactly was the problem, it was a few years ago - but perhaps they have extended it by now.
"Type system" complaint doesn't make much sense, to be honest. LLVM is really just "portable assembly". Type system? It offers the basic primitive types, aggregates thereof (arrays, structs), and pointers to them. That is sufficient to build a data structure of any complexity. Any actual type system of your language would be entirely separate, and may not even trivially map to any of LLVM types - the latter are implementation details.
With respect to tail calls, LLVM has them - unlike C, and that one is actually a big deal because you really have to have tailcall support even on such a low level, because it is something that cannot be efficiently worked around (you can do it if you provide your own call stack, which is obviously not efficient).
Continuations? If we're talking about full-fledged re-invokable ones (which is what call/cc is), then you can't have them without spaghetti stack, anyway - meaning that you have to ignore whatever the platform (and therefore LLVM) provide you, and roll out your own. If it's just a rewinding facility, then LLVM has it.
To sum it up: if you can write a compiler of some language to assembly, you most assuredly can write a compiler for the same language to LLVM.
I'd like to take the opportunity to plug video editing with AviSynth. No, there's no GUI and it only runs on Windows. But, if you want to take the power of scripting and programming to the world of video editing, this tool is for you.
There was at one time a project to make a version that ran cross-platform, but it ran out of steam.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Yeah, that's how I read it too. They're releaseing it for free (as-in-beer) with an SDK. Then they plan to make money off of it by running an "App Store" like service for the plugins.
Don't get me wrong, a no-cost video editor is a good thing. But I think Linux and/or Open Source fans are going to be dissapointed.
Excellent. This is how I understood each license to be.
Sad it took this long to get a good explanation.
Putting aside your whining about being unable to monetize your changes to someone else's code, I think you can expect a relatively permissive license. In TFA, EditShare mentions they intend to let developers sell plug-ins and such. While some device drivers demonstrate you can make binary blobs interact with GPL code, I imagine it would make things much simpler if they stuck with a BSD or MIT license.
> Why do you label him a "troll"? What he says is absolutely true; the MIT and BSD licenses are basically the most-free licenses around.
And pointless.
They aren't entirely pointless. They force new developers to give credit to those that came before. I figure this is what a university is most interested in (i.e. their reputation).
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used.
Not true. Software also exists as an asset to be profited from. For example, if you owned IP right to Photoshop, is would be useful to you as an income generator, even if you never actually used Photoshop in your entire life.
... and then they built the supercollider.
BSD license:
freedom to see, modify, and redistribute the source code of an application that I use = 0
GPL license:
freedom to see, modify, and redistribute the source code of an application that I use = 3
Clearly, the freedom I get with the GPL is bigger than the freedom I get with the BSD license.
Your so-called freedoms are the "freedom" of people who didn't contribute to the software to restrict other people from modifying and redistributing the software. Sometimes software developers grant these additional freedoms in order to achieve some other goals, but they are of no intrinsic value to the developer or the user.
By analogy, if we legalized fraud and murder, people would have more freedom, but that doesn't make legalizing fraud and murder desirable.
The BSD and MIT licenses don't maximize the freedoms of the people who actually count: the original software developers and the end users. In particular, as an end user, I don't have the freedom to inspect, modify, and redistribute the code for the software I use. In return, you grant some other people the freedom to make money of software they didn't develop.
Your argument is like saying that striking laws against murder and theft from the books grants people more freedom. But that impinges my freedom to live free from harm. Or, if you persist in abusing the term "freedom", then one simply has to say: your kind of freedom is not desirable.
The new 2.5 blender will have a fully customizable UI. So all those Maya fans can have a maya like interface. Really when people say the hate the interface, what they really mean is that its not like last the 3d app i took the time to learn. And no 3d app is easy to learn.
However standardizing UI's is not a bad thing either. I just don't like the idea of standardizing and the expense of never improving things, or trying new ideas and work flows. A fully customizable UI is a good idea in that respect.
For the record, I don't know what all the fuss about Blenders UI is about. I have always found UI's in just about everything hard to get started with, but easy after a while, blender included. Intuitive does not mean what most UI standards and UI designers really think it means.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Blender is not CAD. Its a poly modeler with specific application of 3d animation in mind (more or less).
I like blender and i use it a lot. But a good fee CAD tool, i cannot find.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
I thought the point of the analogy, is once a student hears the words "free Beer", he stops caring about brewing his own. ;)
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
It's not like anyone uses OSX for the BSD
*cough* hello?? Loads of geeks use OSX precisely because it has BSD under the hood. I know it's fashionable to bash Apple at the moment for some reason, but wind the clock back 2 years and plenty of people were buying a MacBook so they could have the best of both worlds.
I actually like blender's interface, but I only started liking it once I made a key observation: Right-hand mouse, left-hand keyboard. All the time. It's not just mouse (like many other 3d programs), or just keyboard, pretty much everything uses both.
Not a sentence!
Yoda I am, insensitive clod.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"Ripping off" ??? If the BSD creators felt this way and would not approve such use, they would have used a different license... Apple does what it's allowed to do with the software. They don't want to reinvent the wheel, unlike some Redmond-based company, and are prepared to go for the best sollutions for their customers. They use/support webkit, they distribute Apache and countless other opensource applications with their OS. Want it or not - that's what they are allowed to do.
Most people here have to shut up about licenses - since 99% have never even written any code. It's the developer that decides what someone else would be able to do with his code, and that's nobody else's decision.
Great detailed information, I ll be visiting you more frequently, here is very interesting information. green world
So, now where can I find a good video capture and playback card, which deliver all video formats in a unified open I-frame-only compressed format (e.g. Dirac) to the software, along with the audio in perfect sync (e.g. audio chunks grouped and tagged with video frames), and also accept exactly that same stream (even if re-ordered frame by frame) on output. Compression is important to avoid having to process 250 megaBYTES of data for HD. Also, this hardware needs to have the various forms of audio/video input/output that are in common use in the marketed region, including genlocked synchronized output. For the USA this would include the SDI and HD-SDI commonly used in broadcast, as well as Firewire, HDMI and preferably also analog. And, of course, its driver needs to be full open source suitable for use on BSD and Linux. If the hardware to software interface is designed in a straight-forward simple manner, with basic commands to set modes, query detected input modes, and read/write data blocks frame by frame, there would be no secrecy needed in the driver.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The difference in security of programming between the C/C++ languages and higher languages, is that in the former case, security is the responsibility of the programmer, whereas in the latter case, security gets delegated to the language framework. Not all programmers can get it right for the former. OTOH, the latter risks programmers doing something really stupid because they think their arse is covered.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
why so sore? why so stupid? doesn't it suck to play foul and still lose? just... move over already.
nah.
Or if they want to make sure their developers get paid, they could release it dual license GPL / proprietary. That way everyone brings something to the table: cash or code.
And, no, despite the talking points from this season's blusterings from M$partners, the project maintainer is not required to accept the code. That stands regardless of the license used, GPL, BSD or other. And regardless of the license, they are still in the best position to earn money from customization or deployment. Even if something is FOSS and easy to deploy, there are still a lot of companies that would rather pay you to set it up right the first time and walk their staff through the process. Do it in a way that they're happy about and they'll call back with more orders.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Clearly not oh trollish one. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
I don't know how I will modded but GPL is "NOT" for end users. It does not affect end users one bit. End users do not compile or care to compile code.
Unfortunately, there is no (-1, Wrong) moderation. The GPL is for protection of users. It gives the users the right to receive, modify, and redistribute the code. You can see it is for protection of users because it gives these rights only to the users, i.e. the recipients of the binary code. As a programmer who is not the user, you are not entitled to receive the code from the distributor, because they did not distribute the binary to you.
If you are contributing to the codebase then you are no longer wearing the "end user" hat but a "contributing developer" hat.
This is provably false. You are, rather, wearing two hats at once.
BSD and MIT license grant more rights to third party developers. Full stop.
Artistic and similar licenses grant rights to everyone, while GPL grants rights to users. Full stop. It's right there in the licenses. By default works are covered by copyright. Artistic licenses say anyone can do as they like but you must give credit. GPL says recipients of the program can do as they like. The source code is considered to be the program as well (as it should be) so recipients of the source are granted the same rights as recipients of the binary. Except, of course, clauses about providing source don't apply, since there's no source to the source.
GPL takes the approach of enforcement of rules if you want to play while BSD relies on good will and a desire to co-operate.
False. Both are powered by copyright, and thus both depend on the enforcement of rules.
One requires coercion and the other is completely voluntary.
Both are completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to use either license when you distribute software you have written. BSD and GPL licenses only grant rights! They take nothing away. One license, however, provably provides more freedom for end users, and that license is the GPL, because it requires distributors of binaries to provide machine-readable sources as well. Remember, the GPL came from the desire to modify a printer driver. We're talking about an end-user here. GPL reduces the rights of the author (rights under copyright law) but increases the rights of the end user. Full stop.</snarky>
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think the John Palmer's How to Brew Beer is the best place for a brewing newbie to start. Not only is it a great resource, but it's free online, or you can buy a dead tree version. Mosher's books are indeed very good, but not the best place to start, IMHO.
See http://www.howtobrew.com/intro.html
Clearly not oh trollish one. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used. It also will ensure lightworks continues to benefit from this open-sourcing. Without the GPL linux would be as unused in the enterprise as FreeBSD.
I don't know how I will modded but GPL is "NOT" for end users. It does not affect end users one bit. End users do not compile or care to compile code.
Unfortunately, there is no (-1, Wrong) moderation. The GPL is for protection of users. It gives the users the right to receive, modify, and redistribute the code. You can see it is for protection of users because it gives these rights only to the users, i.e. the recipients of the binary code. As a programmer who is not the user, you are not entitled to receive the code from the distributor, because they did not distribute the binary to you.
Fortunately for you, there is no such modification. Users have no interest to receive, modify and redistribute code. Interested third party developers however do. As long as the GPL community continues to confuse users with developers, GNU desktop environments will continue to languish with poor end user support and uptake by the general public. It does not matter if something is "free", people are not willing to spend their time in exchange for "free" products anymore.
If you are contributing to the codebase then you are no longer wearing the "end user" hat but a "contributing developer" hat.
This is provably false. You are, rather, wearing two hats at once.
Yet again, you do not understand the distinction between the general public user community and developers. Developers are willing to roll up their sleeves to fix bugs while end users want a product that works and sufficient documentation to explain how the software work in the event that the UI is non-obvious.
BSD and MIT license grant more rights to third party developers. Full stop.
Artistic and similar licenses grant rights to everyone, while GPL grants rights to users. Full stop. It's right there in the licenses. By default works are covered by copyright. Artistic licenses say anyone can do as they like but you must give credit. GPL says recipients of the program can do as they like. The source code is considered to be the program as well (as it should be) so recipients of the source are granted the same rights as recipients of the binary. Except, of course, clauses about providing source don't apply, since there's no source to the source.
This is patently false. USERS do not receive the program in any other form than a compiled binary. Even if you were to include a source directory wastefully in the same DMG as the binary, users will install the binary and throw away the DMG not bothering to look at it. The GPL does not grant or bind the end user to anything. It is not an EULA (End USER Licence Agreement).
GPL takes the approach of enforcement of rules if you want to play while BSD relies on good will and a desire to co-operate.
False. Both are powered by copyright, and thus both depend on the enforcement of rules.
Copyright is not affected by either license. What is your point? You still maintain the copyright to all of the code that you write regardless of license. Some projects require rights assignment (GNU for example) before the code is accepted into the repository but that is outside of license terms.
One requires coercion and the other is completely voluntary.
Both are completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to use either license when you distribute software you have written. BSD and GPL licenses only grant rights! They take nothing away. One license, however, provably provides mo
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
That comment makes the FSM smile upon you and will get you closer to an eternity spent in the shadow of the beer volcano and within walking distance of the stripper factory.
WTF, don't they ship?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I prefer growlers to kegs. No need to have a dispensing system, easy to transport, and easy to give away, and less of a PITA than cleaning 12 or 16oz bottles.
I have 100's of growlers in storage awaiting my next brewing exercise.
Fortunately for you, there is no such modification. Users have no interest to receive, modify and redistribute code.
Please visit The Free Software Definition and read. Just read. Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: (four freedoms are enumerated, see link) A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Need more?
In short, you do not know what you are talking about, and should desist blathering nonsense immediately. The GPL was explicitly created to protect the interests of the user. If that user is not a programmer, then they are going to receive less benefit than if they were. On the other hand, many people who are not programmers are able to derive benefits from the GPL beyond being clearly permitted to redistribute products they have purchased as is already covered by first sale law; for example, you can download OpenWRT or DD-WRT for your Linksys/Cisco router because of the influence of the GPL. See, one programmer can produce code that many people can execute. And by extension, with the benefits of Free Software, the users will have the right to do so.
The viral nature of the GPL is a major stumbling block for companies
...which only want to take, and never give. We don't need them. Over time even Microsoft has been releasing source code of its own volition. IBM has gone from one of the most closed companies on the planet to one of the champions of Open Source and even Free Software. Entire corporations are profitably operating on the basis of developing FoSS.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
All very true. OTOH, I can dispense any amount I want at a time, even if it's just a 2-oz sample. Plus, with kegs if my friends want beer, they actually have to visit me.;)
I have some nice 1-liter flip-tops with rugged carrying crates that make it easy to transport them, but I just never seem to use them much.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Excellent reference. I like Palmer's stuff, and you're right, his material is probably better to start with. I just really like how Mosher is able to explain relatively complex concepts in a way that anyone can understand, and I love his graphs and charts.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.