lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...


From: Johnny Ferguson
Subject: Re: Lilypond for FL Studio ...
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 06:27:17 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100528 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.0.5

On 07/22/2010 05:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
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.


fair enough. License is a license. Still, would the GPL actually prevent IL from calling a lilypond binary separately? I thought it only disallowed linking, which as far as I understand it applies to things like libraries, or the practice of dropping GPL code into closed-source code. If that extends to piping between processes, I suppose I stand shocked and corrected.

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.


I stand corrected then. Still, as nice as it is that the GPL ensures user freedoms, it doesn't really offer much for the developers (while there are exceptions, I think this is the status quo) in light of what it takes away from them.

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.


I can't deny the pitfalls of proprietary development, but I think in the case of FL it's rather clear that it's still going strong, and will likely continue for a long time. It's an extremely accessible program, which is more than I can say for programs that will likely be around forever (if what you say is true).

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.


That sounds a little backwards, though not surprising. I take it by "marketable" you mean "able to convince people to care"? Fair enough, in light of the fact that devs are the only ones who produce anything other than bug reports/feature requests in the open-source world.

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.


I think the jury is in, but the developers don't care to listen. While true that as they work for free it cannot be expected of them, I find it perplexing that they would waste their time developing something in such a way that it is less usable than what the community wants. At the same time, this can lead into the issue of there being so many voices that one doesn't know who to listen to and forks endlessly.

The solution to that (I believe) comes from the proprietary world. Having an architect who can specify the design of a project/program start to finish. Not in the sense that they close it off to the world, but in the sense that they at least make something useable and coherent before opening it up to the plugin-junkies to fill in for missing base-level functionality.

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.


Nor would I ever claim it's black and white. I'm not pro-GPL, nor am I pro closed-source. I believe that software should aim to benefit society as best as it can, and I acknowledge that the GPL aims for that, I simply took issue with the implication that FL could be what it is as a piece of GPL software.

Blender is an edge-case, and while I acknowledge its quality and usefulness as perhaps a sign of potential, I don't believe it's statistically representative of open-source software.

While I don't deny that OSS will mature, I question its ability to keep up with the curve unless it finds a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design. That it offers more benefits in the form of potential is not in question, but that it can offer software on par with commercial applications is in question. I suppose it's not a question of open vs. closed, but more a question of sanely designed vs. horribly cobbled.

Just personally, I see a correlation between quality and development style. As a windows user, I used Fireworks and FL Studio. I've come to linux, and I still haven't found equivalent functionality. If I eventually do, it will have taken me much longer. And I'm not holding my breath for something Fireworks-equivalent. Though I have considered developing something. Even if it were only mildly better than GIMP I'd be happy.

I don't want to start a flame war, and I realize I've taken a somewhat unpopular view (which is a bit OT), but I find the idea of FL going GPL kind of laughable.

*realizes he's full of hot air*

-Johnny



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]