This is a short-sighted view, and can end with your code being less useful in the long run. With a GPL license your code will continue to propogate with other people's beneficial additions. With a BSD license, a significant fraction will "proprietize" the code, and redistribution will cease along those branches.
This is a short-sighted view, and can end with your code being less useful in the long run.
Don't forget that by making the code BSD, it will become usable in MANY projects for which the GPL is not, therey becoming available to a much larger number of users.
So if you want your code to be as useful to as many people as possible, you might very well choose the BSD license.
>When I do programming for myself, with my own >money, I do it under the GPL. That way, I can share >my software, and if someone doesn't want to share >they can pay for a commercial license.
I would say that this is a great *problem* of the GPL. It's very easy in an open project to get spread, diluted copyright ownership. With the GPL, relicensing to a commercial customer can become impossible. A developer can easily find themselves in a situation where he would want to license his work, but some earlier, relatively small contributions can have made this legally basically impossible.
And no, reverting such changes out is often not as easy as it sounds.
>Is that a fact? Have any evidence? Because what you >say makes no sense. Unless Nero bypasses the >operating system somehow, it has to use the same >Linux APIs that k3b et al have to use
Nero is able to talk to the burner directly (via the kernel API). Since it knows the features of the drivers better than k3b does, it can work better.
See for example http://www.redhill.net.au/b-02.html
I know several other people that claimed their ECS K7S5A was stable, until they tried running things like BurnMMX/BurnBX. Needless to say, they got rid of those boards quickly afterwards, as I got rid of mine.
It was a good lesson in "why you should buy the most expensive instead of the cheapest mainboard you can get".
>I don't know about the rest, but my experiences >with ECS boards (K7S5A mainly, a hidden gem) have >been very positive.
Surely, this is some sort of so sarcastic joke that it's not obvious anymore it's a joke?
The K7S5A is surely a prime contender for the worst mainboard to ever have hit this earth. It had severe design issues, couldn't run stable at the advertised speeds, didn't properly support multiple memory modules, had horrible on-board sound, and was generally, just crap. Oh, and did you hear the story about the frontbridge heatsink attachement?
I know it was cheap, but really, why would one pay to play garbage dump for ECS?
The lack of current Java for PocketPC is a political decision from Sun (and a stellarly stupid one). MS can't really do much about that as they lost the right to make Java versions theirselves.
Red Hat Enterprise on the production servers. Gentoo on the play^Wdevelopment boxes.
Yes, RHEL's got outdated software and an outdated kernel. I don't care. It's rock-solid. The security updates can be applied without upgrading the config. I don't need anything else.
>I presume AACplus is actually AAC-HE. The >technology they're using is from MP3plus we've seen >quite some time ago but never takes off. So rest >assured that you're not missing anything if you got >your collection coded in AAC-LC.
Well, HE-AAC got accepted into pretty much every broadcasting standard there is. I don't think you can "take off" more than that. Customers generally aren't aware of it, but that doesn't matter - companies sell solutions (iPod) rather than formats (AAC) anyway.
BTW. You aren't missing anything - that's true. HE-AAC only outpeforms AAC at 128kbps.
Slashdot Mirror
>the iPod does support Apple Lossless, which is just an extension of the
>standard MPEG4 Lossless Audio format.
It is NOT.
MPEG4 Lossless is ALS, and was finalized only a few days ago.
Apple Lossless is ALAC, and is *NOT* compatible. It's a proprietary format.
The first 3 reasons you give are all the same.
The last 5, also.
A statement without evidence to back it up. BTW. A BSD project can't take GPL code and stay BSD.
TROLL
Because:
1) It offers *zero* real protection, *especially* for *small developers* with no legal team to back them up.
2) For people that *are* honest, it causes a hell of a lot of interworking problems.
These are quite simply the facts, regardless of all the religious beliefs that are continously being flaunted above by misguided GPL zealots.
END TROLL
I marked this as a troll because that is how most people will percieve it. Nevertheless it's the truth.
>Only as long as you don't plan to do it from the start.
Right. So, how many small developers *do* plan this from the start?
A commercial company will.
But I believe that's not a state that will help all those people that are praising the GPL here.
This is a short-sighted view, and can end with your code being less useful in the long run.
Don't forget that by making the code BSD, it will become usable in MANY projects for which the GPL is not, therey becoming available to a much larger number of users.
So if you want your code to be as useful to as many people as possible, you might very well choose the BSD license.
TrollTech similarly claims that you cannot, for example, develop something with the noncommercial Qt's and then buy a commercial license later.
I'm not a lawyer, but both those claims seem utterly unenforcable to me.
>When I do programming for myself, with my own
>money, I do it under the GPL. That way, I can share
>my software, and if someone doesn't want to share
>they can pay for a commercial license.
I would say that this is a great *problem* of the GPL. It's very easy in an open project to get spread, diluted copyright ownership. With the GPL, relicensing to a commercial customer can become impossible. A developer can easily find themselves in a situation where he would want to license his work, but some earlier, relatively small contributions can have made this legally basically impossible.
And no, reverting such changes out is often not as easy as it sounds.
>Personally, I like AAC more, but since Apple seems >hell bent on never letting others use the same >format...
Apple has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to say about who can use AAC. They didn't invent nor do they own the format.
>What makes you think Apple would license AAC to any
>store or portable-player company for any less than
>exorbitant fees?
Apple cannot license AAC, they don't own it. It's an open standard.
Apple does own the DRM scheme they apply on top of it.
But iPod's can play unprotected AAC's, too.
>Run a full 16/44 WAV throuh a spectrum analyser.
>Then convert it to mp3 and do the same thing. You
>will see the difference for yourself.
Yes, the frequencies that you can't physically hear are gone. It's an audio codec, it's not designed to LOOK GOOD.
>Is that a fact? Have any evidence? Because what you
>say makes no sense. Unless Nero bypasses the
>operating system somehow, it has to use the same
>Linux APIs that k3b et al have to use
Nero is able to talk to the burner directly (via the kernel API). Since it knows the features of the drivers better than k3b does, it can work better.
>Let's see. Debian. I go apt-get nero. No?
They provide Debian packages, and it should integrate with the desktops (it's GTK).
See for example http://www.redhill.net.au/b-02.html
I know several other people that claimed their ECS K7S5A was stable, until they tried running things like BurnMMX/BurnBX. Needless to say, they got rid of those boards quickly afterwards, as I got rid of mine.
It was a good lesson in "why you should buy the most expensive instead of the cheapest mainboard you can get".
>I don't know about the rest, but my experiences
>with ECS boards (K7S5A mainly, a hidden gem) have
>been very positive.
Surely, this is some sort of so sarcastic joke that it's not obvious anymore it's a joke?
The K7S5A is surely a prime contender for the worst mainboard to ever have hit this earth. It had severe design issues, couldn't run stable at the advertised speeds, didn't properly support multiple memory modules, had horrible on-board sound, and was generally, just crap. Oh, and did you hear the story about the frontbridge heatsink attachement?
I know it was cheap, but really, why would one pay to play garbage dump for ECS?
The lack of current Java for PocketPC is a political decision from Sun (and a stellarly stupid one). MS can't really do much about that as they lost the right to make Java versions theirselves.
Current Seagate 7200.7 and Seagate 7200.8 are quite a bit louder than comparable models from Maxtor and Samsung.
What you say might have been true for the very old Barracudas, but it's sadly no longer the case.
>There used to be a thing called EPOC.
It's now called Symbian and used on phones.
(It's ass to program for, though)
How exactly is this a troll? Idiot moderator detected.
Red Hat Enterprise on the production servers. Gentoo on the play^Wdevelopment boxes.
Yes, RHEL's got outdated software and an outdated kernel. I don't care. It's rock-solid. The security updates can be applied without upgrading the config. I don't need anything else.
I don't know where you got the idea that the sideband information is "L-R". It's a parameter set for a filterbank.
Neither is the mono channel (necessarily) L+R.
The reconstruction isn't *anything* like you describe.
>Nah, what I meant is MP3plus (or is it MP3pro?) never takes off.
Probably because it's a fully closed standard (unlike HE-AAC, MP3, Vorbis, etc...)
>AAC and other codecs are just babysteps which are
>immediately undone by licensing and DRM issues.
AAC has no "licensing issues" in this context (no per broadcast fees, unlike MP3".
Neither does AAC have DRM - this is always added through nonstandard extensions. But you can do that with any format.
>I presume AACplus is actually AAC-HE. The
>technology they're using is from MP3plus we've seen
>quite some time ago but never takes off. So rest
>assured that you're not missing anything if you got
>your collection coded in AAC-LC.
Well, HE-AAC got accepted into pretty much every broadcasting standard there is. I don't think you can "take off" more than that. Customers generally aren't aware of it, but that doesn't matter - companies sell solutions (iPod) rather than formats (AAC) anyway.
BTW. You aren't missing anything - that's true. HE-AAC only outpeforms AAC at 128kbps.
See for example:
l
http://www.rjamorim.com/test/32kbps/results.htm
Vorbis is simply not competitive to HE-AAC at such low bitrates.