The Linux digital audio workstation - Part 1

Posted Aug 14, 2012 9:56 UTC (Tue) by njwhite (guest, #51848)
In reply to: The Linux digital audio workstation - Part 1 by yodermk
Parent article: The Linux digital audio workstation - Part 1

Agree entirely.

I'd also like to add a pedantic note that it'd be nice to note explicitly which programs were proprietary, and not fall into the easy trap of just saying "commercial" when you mean proprietary. After all, free software can and should be commercially viable; I believe Ardour is a commercial project for the main developer, for example.

Author's reply

Posted Aug 18, 2012 12:28 UTC (Sat) by StudioDave (guest, #84346) [Link] (3 responses)

Greetings,

In future articles I will take your advice re: proprietary vs. commercial. The distinction is valid and important.

You wrote that "I believe Ardour is a commercial project for the main developer" and you are close to the mark. IIRC Mac users can purchase a ready-made binary for OSX or download the source code for free and build it themselves (apparently a non-trivial task, considerably moreso building for Linux). Linux source code and binaries remain free as in FSF-defined free. A Windows version may someday appear, my guess is that it will be available a similar fashion to the Mac version.

The chief developer, Paul Davis, relies on user contributions to keep the project going (it's a big project), but Paul intends that Ardour will always be licensed under the GPL. You will never need to purchase the source code.

Best,

Author's reply

Posted Aug 18, 2012 12:39 UTC (Sat) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link]

Thanks Dave.

> The chief developer, Paul Davis, relies on user contributions to keep the project going (it's a big project), but Paul intends that Ardour will always be licensed under the GPL. You will never need to purchase the source code.

I thought that was the case. Good for Paul! When I mentioned it as a good example of a "commercial" free software project, I meant specifically a project that the main developer(s) seek to sustain themselves financially with, while remaining free software.

Author's reply

Posted Aug 18, 2012 14:54 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I'd like to see more of this kind of thing, there are too many popular and fundamental projects that have no sustainable funding model. If the developer isn't making a living off their open source work then they are really operating as a tax on some other professional work and are having to make unnecessary personal sacrifice to make it all work. Even with their sacrifice it's often not enough.

A developer shouldn't have to choose between an open source license and making a living.

Author's reply

Posted Aug 20, 2012 18:11 UTC (Mon) by StudioDave (guest, #84346) [Link]

A quick note. This statement re: compiling Ardour on the Mac :

"apparently a non-trivial task, considerably moreso building for Linux"

should have read:

"apparently a non-trivial task, considerably moreso than building for Linux"

Apologies for the confusion.