AGNULA/DeMuDi & Musix GNU+Linux work very well out of the box as well. You might want to take a look at them while your at it. Less configuration involved with them then there is with Planet CCRMA. Musix is a LiveCD with an install to HDD option. DeMuDi is a Debian-based install disc.
The Sound & MIDI Software For Linux site is a useful reference for all things Linux/Audio. (Yes the site is ugly but there is a lot of good info available there.) Here's their link to several audio-centric distros. One that I have not used but would love to try is Studio To Go! by Fervent Software. An installable LiveCD that is supposed to be end-all of Linux audio solutions. It's a pay-to-play disc, so you'll have to shell out some cash to give it a go. Sight unseen, I'm betting this distro is probably the most refined option available...
You can make write the best audio software, but if I have to use a shitty soundblaster, I'm not even going to consider it...
At the Dutch Electronic Arts Festival (DEAF) I attended a session with Paul Davis, author of Ardour DAW, and he was using RME Multiface.. Hardly a shitty soundblaster, I'd say, although I do think he coded the alsa driver himself.
RME cards are well supported under Linux w/ ALSA and they definitely fall into a superior category...
In the end, I just wish they could have come up with another option then license switching. Say, keeping the engine code GPL and provide another license more suited to their purposes for plugins (which, it appears, are where the real "money" is to be made anyway).
All I really foresee in this case is a fork of the project which will probably hurt them even more then what they perceive today.
Thanks for the discussion, I think we're on the same wavelength now.
The problem with your answer is this: You're saying "If you want to use GPL, you'd better understand all the ramifications and deal with all of them". That's fine, but if you want people to use the GPL in the real world for real things, then the license has to be easy to suit to their business models, not the other way around
Ok, that works. So what you do is evaluate your licensing options and make the determination as to whether or not a particular license is going to suit your needs. These guys are saying (now) that the GPL does not do that, that it's not working for them. Fine, but remember, they chose to use the GPL in the first place. No one forced them to do this. At some point they must have felt that the GPL would be beneficial to their cause, now they don't. Fine, choose another license--if they are in the clear as far as copyrights go to all of the code, if not they will have to work those issues out first...
Choose another license, but do not make the claim that the GPL is broken (has a "loophole" in it) and that is the reason to switch. That is not correct. It's quite clear what the GPL affords and how it works. To pretend otherwise is to be less then genuine, IMO.
What is unclear in my position?
The GPL is not broken, nor does it have a "loophole" in it. It works precisely the way it was intended.
Take responsibility. If the GPL didn't work for you, fine. Say so, but don't imply that it is broken and/or the reason for your failings in the face of competition.
I didn't get that impression at all. He's blaming his competitors who are riding his coattails, not the OSS community.
My main point is that he shouldn't blame the license for his buisness failings. There's no "loophole" in the GPL. It does exactly what it is intended to do. If he misunderstood the intent of that license or failed to develop a business model suited to using it, then it's his own fault.
This assertion about a so-called loophole in the GPL that has allowed his competitors to take advantage of his company amounts to mere sco-like FUD, IMHO. Might other software concerns see these stories with this rhetoric and come away with the notion that the GPL is in some way broken, and that they'd better avoid it?
Actually, once you got it working, deploying it corporate-wide would be trivial
This is true. I should have chosen my wording more carefully. Getting it accepted in the corporate would be the real trick? Getting MS shops to even look at Linux based solutions is akin to shooting the boss's dog most of the time.
Heck, I wasn't even supposed to mention the "L" word a few years back (I'm totally serious). Times are changing though, I can at least bring it up once in a while without getting tossed out the door these days...
When did they start putting in the "only install on Windows" in the licensing? I remember hearing about that but it seemed like a joke at the time...
How well an OSS product fares as a closed source product. Bets are on: better or worse a year from now?
It will be interesting to see what happens with it. I'm betting that someone picks up the GPL code and forks the project. Where will they be when that happens?
This was voted the number one security tool on insecure.org. I would almost count on seeing it fork...
Loophole? That is such a funny choice of words for rationalizing the switch away from the GPL. Tell me they didn't know when they released the initial versions of their code under the GPL that other folks could and would "repackage" it (I suppose that means, in one case, including it with any number of distros).
This is no "loophole", this is the GPL. Free as in speech, free as in beer, free...
Whining about it years later because you're not getting rich off it doesn't really seem like an honest answer to the question, why close the source, does it?
As long as everyone who contributed to the code over the years is cool with changing the license to closed-source then go for it--but don't play it off like it's the community's fault that your company isn't listed in the Fortune 500. Right?
MySQL maintains a dual-licensed scheme and it seems to work fine for them. Dansguardian does something similar. What's the problem here?
MS Office + IE are the desktop to many people in Corporate America. If you could run those on Linux, there would be almost no reason to run windows. Windows just acts as a carrier horse for that suite and "the internet"
The fact is that the Internet has moved beyond the national level. Whether you like it or not, the US' role WILL WANE. Taking a hard-line stance will, potentially, simply ensure that the rest of the world forms an international network to the exclusion of the USA. Your choice... share or be marginalised and excluded. Put another way, share your toys or perhaps in a few years you'll be the one asking to share ours.
In what respect is the US not sharing its 'toys'? It sounds to me like the rest of the kids on the block just want to pick on the rich kid and take what he has--when he's been sharing with them all along. Sounds like a bunch of neighborhood bullies to me...
As for the UN: Please, move the HQ to France. The sooner, the better...
This is a non-issue. The EU & UN can build their own root servers if they want. Nobody is stopping them.
What is all this talk about "handling the internet"? Handle what? The US isn't imposing taxes on other countries, or laws that hamper their use of the internet. When this topic comes up I wonder just what do they want?
No, but that certainly is a disturbing practice. But I'm refering more to recent political and journalistic tendencies.
I see, and agree. The parallels between the two amount to much the same effect. Record companies want their products to sound loud as they don't want their CD buried in the mix. Loud = Good in politics & journalism for similar reasons, the "squeaky (noisy) wheel gets the grease."
The outcome in both cases, I'm afraid, ends up being consumer indifference as they become desensitized, apathetic, and bored as a result.
OT but, perchance are you referring to the practice of destroying musical recordings during the mastering phase via killing the signal with limiters and cranking it up to constantly fill all the available headroom on a CD (or other digital medium)?
Now that is the industry-destroying practice that the RIAA should fight against with all their might, IMHO...
It's probably fair to summarize that Free music isn't exactly new as of 2005.
True, but getting their album torrents listed on/. has probably increased their download traffic exponentially! How's that for marketing & exposure? Brilliant! Especially since most of us have (or probably would have) never heard of this band in the first place without this post...
How disturbing. From this thread, it sounds like the Big Brother, Survivor, etc. games really are a reflection of reality. As much as I wish that weren't true.
"It's just a game, nothing personal..."
"It's just business, nothing personal..."
"Just because I lied to get ahead does not invalidate my personal integrity..."
Business politics simply appear to be more or less an extension of high school politics. I guess I have been right all these years. High school really doesn't ever end...
Nothing like stating the obvious I guess, even it I wish it weren't so...
Please don't assume those two sites are representative of the results of even a moderate amount of effort with mambo / joomla. It's pretty easy to do much better work with very little effort -- see the mambo or joomla sites for some (much less grey) examples.
I will take that advice. Thanks! I guess the *-Nuke variants have fallen out of favor over mambo & joomla? Or maybe they are very different products altogether?
Actually, I was glad to see examples of Mambo in action myself. Providing such and getting a plug in at the same time, eh, that's not such a bad thing at all...
The thing is, you can have it my way or you can have it the Creative Commons way. The Commons license isn't granting you any new power, controls, or freedoms -- copyright law is what's giving you everything, no matter which way you choose to license your stuff. People who are pro-Creative Commons, anti-copyright are fooling themselves. It's the same thing. All Creative Commons is, as far as I can see, is a lawyer who was nice enough to draft up some stock boilerplate for you, free of charge. That was nice of him.
I think that you have hit it dead on and that is where the Dvorak/Orlowski confusion seems to be so contrived. CC is not about granting the copyright holder more rights--no one can do that but congress. It's not anti-copyright either. Not at all. It's just a simple way for you to tell consumers en masse what they can and cannot do with your work. If you'd rather do the one-off permissions thing, then don't use CC. Easy.
If you post a By Attribution - Non-Commercial CC license with your work and someone wishes to use it commercially, then they can ask you and you can say yes or no. You, as the copyright holder, are still in control.
If you want to STOP licensing a particular work under a CC license, you can do that too--for all future consumers. Anyone who obtained the work previously under the CC license that you now no longer wish to use STILL has the rights you granted to them (until the term of the copyright expires, which will matter to neither party since they will both now have long been dead. What is the term now? Life of the author + 70 years or something to that effect?).
Either way you slice it, your rights as copyright holder are not diminished at all. You are in control to grant redistribution rights to others either en masse via CC or individually as interested parties approach you. Whatever works best for you...
So *what* is the big deal with these guys that they so despise CC and act like it is something that it is not? I want to think it is more then trolling for hits, but there doesn't seem to be any other motive that I can tell...
So clearly it *is* permanantly irrevocable, which is a good thing. If it weren't, how could the end user be assured that her or his freedoms to use the software (or whatever) under the license would still be there in the future? This way, an author can't just say "this isn't working out for me, now you have to pay me $10 to keep using [whatever]," as that would be tantamount to extortion.
I should have pondered longer;-)
Of course it would have to be irrevocable until the expiration of the copyright term otherwise it would be useless, even dangerous to the consumer.
The bigger wonder is just why (besides trolling for hits) are Dvorak & Orlowski so against CC licensing? It's the simplest avenue currently available to let interested parties know what rights you as the copyright holder are granting to them as consumers. Really. *What* is the big deal??
These advocates of keeping everything locked up tight via the ominous and all-powerful notice "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" make it sound as if you are signing over your copyrights to the CC organization in their articles. They should (you would think) obviously know that this is not correct at all. Therefore, if they *aren't* just trolling for hits, what is their motivation in these attacks?
If I want to license my writing or music or whatever to anyone who is interested, CC certainly gives me easy tools to use to do so without the need for a lawyer, etc...
Orlowski seems to be of the opinion that if you release under a By Attribution - Non-Commercial license that you've already given away the store and can never make any money from that creation again. After all, who's going to buy something that is free?
Magnatune (at least) has clearly shown that this argument is not the case (otherwise they would no longer exist and/or artists would stop returning to them to market their works on the site). Musicians who never would have gotten any exposure otherwise are at least out there. And, I know some are making money from their CC licensed works, at least from me anyway--as I have purchased more then one Magnatune album myself.
I guess I don't really care if they are trolling at this point. The more that copyright issues are discussed, the more consumers are going to become aware of how it all works (and how all the big-media driven congressionally imposed restrictions are becoming a royal pain). And they will learn what they can and cannot do with these materials. Calling CC a fad is fine. But the more it's out there, the more the mainstream is going to take notice of things they may never have considered before. You want to stop piracy? Stop making people criminals with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
In the long run, the more we understand the issues at hand the better off we are, IMHO...
I did not read the text of the bill, but I did a search for the word "software" in it.
It's not there.
"Code"? (As in software.)
Not in there either.
Of course, I would like to see them add a line to the effect that software code or the idea for an implementation of software is not patentable, otherwise I fear we are getting just more of the same and...
So basically they're showing you how to use a photo storage service to store private data. I think this is immoral and is probably against the terms of service.
Why would this be immoral? There has been a lot of noise about possibly violating the TOS but has anyone actually bothered reading them? (There are two, one for pre-Yahoo! accounts and one for Flickr after aquisition by Yahoo!--which everyone will be required to abide in 2006.)
Both TOS say pretty much the same thing. You are responsible for your images, and don't upload destructive code. Don't help terrorists. Don't break copyright law (or other laws)...
As a 'digital artist' wouldn't you expect to be allowed to manipulate your work in whatever ways you saw fit before uploading--obvious, subtly, or non-obviously?
I don't have any strong opinion on the matter. The only thing I might be interested in is GPG encrypting my password list and then embedding it in an image with steganography, in case I ever lost it. Mass data storage? No.
Immoral? No, not in general. Not IMO. But, if you are using it to break the law or harm society, then yes.
...you, and not Yahoo!, are entirely responsible for all Content that you upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available via the Service. Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content.
Ever since the browser wars began back in the day, it has always been my hope that the locked up extensions would just 'go away' in favor of the standards issued by W3C. I really don't get it either. Isn't MS an active participant in W3C. Really it is in everyone's best interest to comply. A browser is only a means to an end and as hardly anyone sells them as a product the key is content and content presentation. It would benefit all if content presented itself properly no matter what browser it was being viewed through. It's not an unrealistic goal at all, IMO. One can always hope, eh?
If FireFox wants to become my dominate choice - then it better be the dominate OS.
I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious--what did you intend this to mean? FireFox is a browser that runs on various operating systems. It is not an OS (of course). Should we infer that you meant "...then it better [become] the dominate [browser]..." or is there something else that I am missing here?
Slashdot Mirror
True, if you have a toob amp. If you don't, what's the point?
Otherwise get a multi-effect pedal rig that does amp/cabinet modeling with S/PDIF out and plug it into your PC...
The Sound & MIDI Software For Linux site is a useful reference for all things Linux/Audio. (Yes the site is ugly but there is a lot of good info available there.) Here's their link to several audio-centric distros. One that I have not used but would love to try is Studio To Go! by Fervent Software. An installable LiveCD that is supposed to be end-all of Linux audio solutions. It's a pay-to-play disc, so you'll have to shell out some cash to give it a go. Sight unseen, I'm betting this distro is probably the most refined option available...
At the Dutch Electronic Arts Festival (DEAF) I attended a session with Paul Davis, author of Ardour DAW, and he was using RME Multiface.. Hardly a shitty soundblaster, I'd say, although I do think he coded the alsa driver himself.
RME cards are well supported under Linux w/ ALSA and they definitely fall into a superior category...
All I really foresee in this case is a fork of the project which will probably hurt them even more then what they perceive today.
Thanks for the discussion, I think we're on the same wavelength now.
Ok, that works. So what you do is evaluate your licensing options and make the determination as to whether or not a particular license is going to suit your needs. These guys are saying (now) that the GPL does not do that, that it's not working for them. Fine, but remember, they chose to use the GPL in the first place. No one forced them to do this. At some point they must have felt that the GPL would be beneficial to their cause, now they don't. Fine, choose another license--if they are in the clear as far as copyrights go to all of the code, if not they will have to work those issues out first...
Choose another license, but do not make the claim that the GPL is broken (has a "loophole" in it) and that is the reason to switch. That is not correct. It's quite clear what the GPL affords and how it works. To pretend otherwise is to be less then genuine, IMO.
What is unclear in my position?
My main point is that he shouldn't blame the license for his buisness failings. There's no "loophole" in the GPL. It does exactly what it is intended to do. If he misunderstood the intent of that license or failed to develop a business model suited to using it, then it's his own fault.
This assertion about a so-called loophole in the GPL that has allowed his competitors to take advantage of his company amounts to mere sco-like FUD, IMHO. Might other software concerns see these stories with this rhetoric and come away with the notion that the GPL is in some way broken, and that they'd better avoid it?
This is true. I should have chosen my wording more carefully. Getting it accepted in the corporate would be the real trick? Getting MS shops to even look at Linux based solutions is akin to shooting the boss's dog most of the time.
Heck, I wasn't even supposed to mention the "L" word a few years back (I'm totally serious). Times are changing though, I can at least bring it up once in a while without getting tossed out the door these days...
When did they start putting in the "only install on Windows" in the licensing? I remember hearing about that but it seemed like a joke at the time...
It will be interesting to see what happens with it. I'm betting that someone picks up the GPL code and forks the project. Where will they be when that happens?
This was voted the number one security tool on insecure.org. I would almost count on seeing it fork...
This is no "loophole", this is the GPL. Free as in speech, free as in beer, free...
Whining about it years later because you're not getting rich off it doesn't really seem like an honest answer to the question, why close the source, does it?
As long as everyone who contributed to the code over the years is cool with changing the license to closed-source then go for it--but don't play it off like it's the community's fault that your company isn't listed in the Fortune 500. Right?
MySQL maintains a dual-licensed scheme and it seems to work fine for them. Dansguardian does something similar. What's the problem here?
According to Frank's Corner you can run both MS Office and Internet Explorer on the Linux desktop. And...he shows you how.
Implementing it corporate wide would be the real trick...
In what respect is the US not sharing its 'toys'? It sounds to me like the rest of the kids on the block just want to pick on the rich kid and take what he has--when he's been sharing with them all along. Sounds like a bunch of neighborhood bullies to me...
As for the UN: Please, move the HQ to France. The sooner, the better...
What is all this talk about "handling the internet"? Handle what? The US isn't imposing taxes on other countries, or laws that hamper their use of the internet. When this topic comes up I wonder just what do they want?
I see, and agree. The parallels between the two amount to much the same effect. Record companies want their products to sound loud as they don't want their CD buried in the mix. Loud = Good in politics & journalism for similar reasons, the "squeaky (noisy) wheel gets the grease."
The outcome in both cases, I'm afraid, ends up being consumer indifference as they become desensitized, apathetic, and bored as a result.
OT but, perchance are you referring to the practice of destroying musical recordings during the mastering phase via killing the signal with limiters and cranking it up to constantly fill all the available headroom on a CD (or other digital medium)?
Now that is the industry-destroying practice that the RIAA should fight against with all their might, IMHO...
True, but getting their album torrents listed on /. has probably increased their download traffic exponentially! How's that for marketing & exposure? Brilliant! Especially since most of us have (or probably would have) never heard of this band in the first place without this post...
"It's just a game, nothing personal..."
"It's just business, nothing personal..."
"Just because I lied to get ahead does not invalidate my personal integrity..."
Business politics simply appear to be more or less an extension of high school politics. I guess I have been right all these years. High school really doesn't ever end...
Nothing like stating the obvious I guess, even it I wish it weren't so...
I have noticed a lot of sites using Drupal myself. It seems to have a solid and well supported user-base...
I will take that advice. Thanks! I guess the *-Nuke variants have fallen out of favor over mambo & joomla? Or maybe they are very different products altogether?
Actually, I was glad to see examples of Mambo in action myself. Providing such and getting a plug in at the same time, eh, that's not such a bad thing at all...
I think that you have hit it dead on and that is where the Dvorak/Orlowski confusion seems to be so contrived. CC is not about granting the copyright holder more rights--no one can do that but congress. It's not anti-copyright either. Not at all. It's just a simple way for you to tell consumers en masse what they can and cannot do with your work. If you'd rather do the one-off permissions thing, then don't use CC. Easy.
If you post a By Attribution - Non-Commercial CC license with your work and someone wishes to use it commercially, then they can ask you and you can say yes or no. You, as the copyright holder, are still in control.
If you want to STOP licensing a particular work under a CC license, you can do that too--for all future consumers. Anyone who obtained the work previously under the CC license that you now no longer wish to use STILL has the rights you granted to them (until the term of the copyright expires, which will matter to neither party since they will both now have long been dead. What is the term now? Life of the author + 70 years or something to that effect?).
Either way you slice it, your rights as copyright holder are not diminished at all. You are in control to grant redistribution rights to others either en masse via CC or individually as interested parties approach you. Whatever works best for you...
So *what* is the big deal with these guys that they so despise CC and act like it is something that it is not? I want to think it is more then trolling for hits, but there doesn't seem to be any other motive that I can tell...
I should have pondered longer ;-)
Of course it would have to be irrevocable until the expiration of the copyright term otherwise it would be useless, even dangerous to the consumer.
The bigger wonder is just why (besides trolling for hits) are Dvorak & Orlowski so against CC licensing? It's the simplest avenue currently available to let interested parties know what rights you as the copyright holder are granting to them as consumers. Really. *What* is the big deal??
These advocates of keeping everything locked up tight via the ominous and all-powerful notice "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" make it sound as if you are signing over your copyrights to the CC organization in their articles. They should (you would think) obviously know that this is not correct at all. Therefore, if they *aren't* just trolling for hits, what is their motivation in these attacks?
If I want to license my writing or music or whatever to anyone who is interested, CC certainly gives me easy tools to use to do so without the need for a lawyer, etc...
Orlowski seems to be of the opinion that if you release under a By Attribution - Non-Commercial license that you've already given away the store and can never make any money from that creation again. After all, who's going to buy something that is free?
Magnatune (at least) has clearly shown that this argument is not the case (otherwise they would no longer exist and/or artists would stop returning to them to market their works on the site). Musicians who never would have gotten any exposure otherwise are at least out there. And, I know some are making money from their CC licensed works, at least from me anyway--as I have purchased more then one Magnatune album myself.
I guess I don't really care if they are trolling at this point. The more that copyright issues are discussed, the more consumers are going to become aware of how it all works (and how all the big-media driven congressionally imposed restrictions are becoming a royal pain). And they will learn what they can and cannot do with these materials. Calling CC a fad is fine. But the more it's out there, the more the mainstream is going to take notice of things they may never have considered before. You want to stop piracy? Stop making people criminals with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
In the long run, the more we understand the issues at hand the better off we are, IMHO...
It's not there.
"Code"? (As in software.)
Not in there either.
Of course, I would like to see them add a line to the effect that software code or the idea for an implementation of software is not patentable, otherwise I fear we are getting just more of the same and...
Amazon will rule the world...
Why would this be immoral? There has been a lot of noise about possibly violating the TOS but has anyone actually bothered reading them? (There are two, one for pre-Yahoo! accounts and one for Flickr after aquisition by Yahoo!--which everyone will be required to abide in 2006.)
Both TOS say pretty much the same thing. You are responsible for your images, and don't upload destructive code. Don't help terrorists. Don't break copyright law (or other laws)...
As a 'digital artist' wouldn't you expect to be allowed to manipulate your work in whatever ways you saw fit before uploading--obvious, subtly, or non-obviously?
I don't have any strong opinion on the matter. The only thing I might be interested in is GPG encrypting my password list and then embedding it in an image with steganography, in case I ever lost it. Mass data storage? No.
Immoral? No, not in general. Not IMO. But, if you are using it to break the law or harm society, then yes.
Ever since the browser wars began back in the day, it has always been my hope that the locked up extensions would just 'go away' in favor of the standards issued by W3C. I really don't get it either. Isn't MS an active participant in W3C. Really it is in everyone's best interest to comply. A browser is only a means to an end and as hardly anyone sells them as a product the key is content and content presentation. It would benefit all if content presented itself properly no matter what browser it was being viewed through. It's not an unrealistic goal at all, IMO. One can always hope, eh?
I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious--what did you intend this to mean? FireFox is a browser that runs on various operating systems. It is not an OS (of course). Should we infer that you meant "...then it better [become] the dominate [browser]..." or is there something else that I am missing here?