Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Commercial Sound And Music Software For Linux, Part 1 (Linux Journal)
Dave Phillips is at it again, this time reviewing the state of
commercial audio software for Linux. In part one of his Linux Journal
article, he reviews a sequencer program, a program to create rhythm
patterns and loops, as well as a transcription tool. "Before we begin
this whirlwind tour I must declare that I am not at all opposed to the
notion and practice of commercial Linux software of any kind. The user is
still free to decide that he or she can live without a commercial product,
nor do I believe that commercialism will somehow inevitably corrupt the
world of FOSS Linux audio software. Personally I welcome more such
software, especially if it addresses some glaring lack in the current free
software armory. I prefer free solutions, but if a commercial tool exists
that does the needed job, then I'm all for using that tool until a free
alternative exists."
(Log in to post comments)
Use of proprietary software Posted Dec 10, 2007 21:33 UTC (Mon) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link] Any chance we can either ignore the troll or direct people to a wiki or somewhere where the arguments can be refined and saved for future?
Use of proprietary software Posted Dec 13, 2007 21:13 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Um, what are you talking about here?
Commercial Sound And Music Software For Linux, Part 1 (Linux Journal) Posted Dec 11, 2007 19:45 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link] "GPL" or "Copyleft" licensing terms do not preclude software from being "commercial." Linux itself is "commercial" software in very many circumstances. With that in mind, I agree with the proper interpretation of the original author's statement. I have no problem with commercial software on Linux either. When he says "commercial" though, he's using it as an euphemism for "proprietary." It's a shame that the author feels he should be semantically dishonest, but it's more of a shame that LWN copied the term without correction or comment.
Commercial Sound And Music Software For Linux, Part 1 (Linux Journal) Posted Dec 13, 2007 12:00 UTC (Thu) by cannam (subscriber, #6467) [Link] When he says "commercial" though, he's using it as an euphemism for "proprietary." He is? Why do you think that? I think that when he says "commercial", he's using it to mean "something you pay for". Is that dishonest? I think it's quite correct for a user to think of software as commercial, or not, on the basis of whether they've used money in getting it. Still, I guess you meant software that involves commercial activity to sustain the developer, rather than on the part of the individual user. Having been involved a great deal in the development of GPL music software for Linux, I'm rather tired of hearing the same response every time anyone raises the difficulty of financing it: "You just don't understand the GPL. The GPL doesn't preclude software from being commercial". Yes, and? You and I know that, but what comes next? The problem is not whether the text of the GPL in principle precludes commercialising software, but whether the use of the GPL in practice does. And in the case of software aimed at individual domestic users -- with essentially no potential corporate interest -- it really looks as if it does. I would like that to be proven wrong, but we're failing pretty well so far at building the counterexamples.
Commercial Sound And Music Software For Linux, Part 1 (Linux Journal) Posted Dec 13, 2007 21:27 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] > When he says "commercial" though, he's using it as an euphemism for "proprietary." It's a shame that the author feels he should be semantically dishonest Have you *never* used the wrong word because your brain blanked out on the right one...? Do you think you are typical in that respect?
All free or all proprietary Posted Dec 11, 2007 21:19 UTC (Tue) by xuxa (guest, #29601) [Link] I, for one, am *not* interested in proprietary software for music production on gnu/linux. It seems to me like if you're okay with non-free software, then you would be better served using OS X with all-proprietary software. With the exception of MuSing, it doesn't look to me like these apps offer much that isn't available already in the free software world. And there are better alternatives in the all-non-free universe.
All free or all proprietary Posted Dec 13, 2007 21:20 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] > I, for one, am *not* interested in proprietary software for music production on gnu/linux. Best not read that article, then.
|
|||||||||||