LWN: Comments on "Ardour 1.0: never" https://lwn.net/Articles/156146/ This is a special feed containing comments posted to the individual LWN article titled "Ardour 1.0: never". en-us Mon, 15 Sep 2025 16:02:16 +0000 Mon, 15 Sep 2025 16:02:16 +0000 https://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification lwn@lwn.net ardour license https://lwn.net/Articles/158481/ https://lwn.net/Articles/158481/ ardourphile GNU General Public License, Version 2, June 1991.<br> <p> This is at least hinted at on the following page: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://ardour.org/money.php">http://ardour.org/money.php</a>.<br> <p> At the rate it's going, Ardour isn't going to reach version 3.0 anytime soon. But when it does, most people won't *need* access to the current development code. Arguably that point has already been reached with the release of Ardour 0.99.<br> Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:19:39 +0000 I note... https://lwn.net/Articles/157715/ https://lwn.net/Articles/157715/ Baylink that the licence under which it's developers distribute Ardour is *conspicuously* absent from their website. Does anyone know what it is?<br> Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:25:23 +0000 Limited read access?! https://lwn.net/Articles/156419/ https://lwn.net/Articles/156419/ nix The note in their project status about Ardour 3.0: <blockquote> read-access to development code will be limited to core beta testers and by paid license. </blockquote> certainly doesn't seem like a good way to build up a development community. Perhaps they <i>want</i> people submitting patches which have to be hacked before application, but it seems very strange to me. Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:25:14 +0000