[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [fluid-dev] New development

From: Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] New development
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:01:54 +0100

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Josh Green wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 22:46 +0100, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > I have a problem with ASIO, though. First, I don't like the license terms 
> > from
> > Steinberg: they don't allow to redistribute their sources (that are 
> > available
> > free of charge for registered developers). Second, they ask for an unfair
> > amount of personal data before allowing you to download the SDKs.
> >
> > I've created binary setup packages for Windows bundling QSynth and 
> > FluidSynth
> > in the past (available in SourceForge). I fear that I'm not going to include
> > ASIO support in the future ones.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pedro
> Now that I read things right..  So your objection to ASIO extends to
> PortAudio as well?  I mean, distributing a PortAudio enabled FluidSynth,
> which happens to be able to use ASIO as a side effect, seems relatively
> harmless.  Especially if you aren't bundling PortAudio as well.

I agree. PortAudio license is OK for me.

My plan is to add PortAudio support to the next QSynth's Windows
binary package, after the release of FluidSynth 1.0.9, bundling also a
PortAudio library built without ASIO. It would be possible for
somebody to replace the provided PortAudio DLL compiled with a
different backend.

Building PortAudio for Windows requires to choose only one backend
among those provided in the sources: DSound, WinMM, ASIO and WDMKS. As
FluidSynth already has a DSound driver, and I dislike ASIO, I would
like to try the other two.

> I can understand your objections to semi-closed or completely closed
> standards, I dislike them myself.  I had a rather lengthy discussion
> with someone over the licensing terms of the DLS instrument standard.  I
> think to this day, their clutching on to the specification is the reason
> why it isn't as popular as SoundFont, despite some of its improvements
> over them.  It seems like its the open standards that end up getting
> adopted usually, even if they aren't necessarily the best.
> Regards,
>        Josh

reply via email to

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