Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...

[David Kastrup]

Johnny Ferguson <address@hidden> writes:

> On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote:
>> They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that.
>
> <rant>
>
> I think it's far too easy to make a statement like "They can still
> make money with GPL" especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T
> a GPL equivalent to FL.

So they are not going to get a free ride on GPLed work ignoring its
license.  I don't see how this is cause for a rant.  After all, nobody
says that people should ignore _their_ license.

> I just have a hard time dealing with GPL fanaticism, some attitude
> that seems to believe that anything created under a morally superior
> guideline must also be a better product or tool (essentially a
> non-sequitur).

Sorry, but you are quite wrong.  The "GPL fanaticism" is about simply
not using software that does not come with essential freedoms for the
user, regardless of its other qualities.  That's the Free Software
philosophy responsible for creating and maintaining the GPL.

In contrast, "Open Source philosophy" is about all sort of mumbo jumbo
claiming superior other qualities as a result of providing free
software.

> While it holds true for most GPL software,

That's actually putting the cart before the horse.  If you manage to
recruit enough (even temporary) fanatics for permanent contributions,
you'll get together something.  The non-free development courses have
the problem that the work does not stay around once the original
contributors give up.

> tools for audio and graphics are complete rubbish.

Almost all Free Software started out as the proverbial rubbish in
contrast to existing solutions.  Actually, all commercial software did
so as well.  That means that you have to put in more work in order to
get a marketable product.  With free software, the "marketable" phase
starts when it is interesting to other developers, not to end users.

So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end
user jury is still out, and their case has not even started.

> Not saying GPL tools won't ever meet the caliber of current commercial
> products. I love the idea of the GPL, but I'm a little offended to
> hear people think that FL Studio could continue to hold on to what
> they've worked so hard for by going open-source. In a perfect world it
> would be great, but they have to eat, and I think they should eat in
> light of the amazing tool they've created and continue to support.

You might want to look at the history of "Blender"
<URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/>.

Not everything is as black&white as you want to see it.

-- 
David Kastrup