KVR Audio

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:25 pm

oh f**k it.
I just figured it out, that's like 'sodomites' right?

heh, fudgepackers. hehehehehehe.

drinelli · Post by **drinelli** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:00 pm

I do not know of half of the software you mention, but you must admit, commercial software will allways be a step in front open source, at least untill there is not anything called money=resources=better software Anymore, And you know some of us maybe, dislike the thought of software everybody can get the sourcecode for , no offence.

drinelli · Post by **drinelli** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:08 pm

Hey who calls who a sodomite, you know this is so off topic, not to mention offending if you happen not to be, Not to mention the fact that I had to look in the dictionary, to know what you were talking about.

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Sun May 01, 2005 6:11 am

@drinelli:
actually, open source is ahead of proprietory quite a lot of the time.

drinelli · Post by **drinelli** » Sun May 01, 2005 8:01 pm

@drinelli:
actually, open source is ahead of proprietory quite a lot of the time. Smile

On some areas yes, but no free software synth can can be said to have a standard of let say the native instruments range, build quality, design, and versatility, is astonishing, and there are even a few companys who have some even better products, for such an effort I have no problems with paying for. I mean people starve in this world, why can people not make something good and demand a fee for it, we all have to live, free things are nice, but to make wheels go round we need a carrot sometimes, exactly why the communism failed. I know it would be nice if every things were free, but if we could get all we wanted, that might not be a good thing at all.

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Sun May 01, 2005 8:47 pm

communism failed because of intense corruption within, and insurmountable pressure from without. Had nothing at all to do with what you mention. If the people running the show are corrupt and paranoid and power-mad, the system will fail. that is what happened. capitalism is no better. look at the result of the wto and the world bank: the neo-conservative, market-rules-the-roost policies of such organizations has been directly responsible for far more poverty, desolation, death, and environmental degradation than the communists could possibly have caused.
Communism is based on an ideal that is basically flawed; read Plato and you will see that it could never work; read modern history and you will see that it's not because of money.

Anyway, open source does not MEAN free, and vice versa. Open source means that anyone can make money on it, but the knowledge stays available for the good of the world. Even some corporations are now nurturing and supporting the open source world. Novell --> SuSE, Netscape --> Mozilla, etc etc... lots more. Even IBM is heavilly invested in the open source world. It is VERY important, and also VERY threatened by people misunderstanding what it is. We need to use opensource software whenever we can, and spread it around as much as possible. Even sell it, so you can make some money while you do a good thing for the world.

multree · Post by **multree** » Sun May 01, 2005 8:50 pm

drinelli wrote:
@drinelli:
actually, open source is ahead of proprietory quite a lot of the time. Smile
On some areas yes, but no free software synth can can be said to have a standard of let say the native instruments range, build quality, design, and versatility, is astonishing, and there are even a few companys who have some even better products, for such an effort I have no problems with paying for. I mean people starve in this world, why can people not make something good and demand a fee for it, we all have to live, free things are nice, but to make wheels go round we need a carrot sometimes, exactly why the communism failed. I know it would be nice if every things were free, but if we could get all we wanted, that might not be a good thing at all.

and absynth wasn't freeware before NI hired the dev ??? I thought so....

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Sun May 01, 2005 9:01 pm

it's frustrating isn't it? hearing that kind of misconception thrown around as if it was some kind of accepted universal truth... it just makes my brain itch. I don't know why it bugs me. It should be like "hey, if you actually believe that, good for you. Your f**king loss. hahahha". but it bothers me just the same. I always feel the need to correct people.
I wish I knew why.
I wish I knew why people think such silly tings, too.

Space Boy · Post by **Space Boy** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:48 pm

spoonboiler wrote:I always feel the need to correct people.
I wish I knew why.
I wish I knew why people think such silly tings, too.

I'm not sure you are correct. This is just your opinion.

If a developer would like to use patented technology then it should be relatively straighforward to obtain a license from the owner of the patent. The existence of a patent does not mean that no-one can use it. It means that anyone who does, should acknowledge the originator of the invention. This acknowledgement usually takes place in the form of money - i.e. a license fee or royalty fee.

Now if you would like to argue that people shouldn't be able to own a patent (intellectual property), then you will eventually need to extend that argument to say that people shouldn't be able to own anything i.e. like a car or a house (tangeable property). I think most people would then balk at the idea of their house or car being considered freely available for anyone to use.

It is kind of obvious that a house is the property of a person - we don't need an explanation on a document to point that out (even so, there are legal documents indicating ownership). If a person has an idea that leads to an invention because they invested a good part of their life and money thinking about a solution for a complex problem - there is reason to understand that that person would like to benefit from such an investment (few people work for free - especially talented and knowledgeable people). A patent allows the translation of the ownership of that idea/innovation/invention/solution into a tangeable and negotiable property - like we all understand.

Almost everything we benefit from in a modern environment has been enabled, at some point or other, as a result of the possibility to patent innovative steps. This way the owners have been able to survive long enough to make enough profit to re-invest in the development and improvement of the products that use those innovations.

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:09 pm

Freeware is always and will always be much, much better than commersial stuff...it sounds better, works better, smells better and tastes better...and it won't cost you a dime...commersial devs needs to lower their prices and start thinking about how to make money with freeware...perhaps a small ad banner or such in the synth GUI..the advertising should cover the development costs no?

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:10 pm

2300...

Torben · Post by **Torben** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:15 pm

snooky wrote:Freeware is always and will always be much, much better than commersial stuff...it sounds better, works better, smells better and tastes better...and it won't cost you a dime...commersial devs needs to lower their prices and start thinking about how to make money with freeware...perhaps a small ad banner or such in the synth GUI..the advertising should cover the development costs no?

Naturally that banner should be for another free softsynth with a banner, right?

Ixox · Post by **Ixox** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:29 pm

Space Boy wrote:Now if you would like to argue that people shouldn't be able to own a patent (intellectual property), then you will eventually need to extend that argument to say that people shouldn't be able to own anything i.e. like a car or a house (tangeable property). I think most people would then balk at the idea of their house or car being considered freely available for anyone to use.

Too me it sounds more like "i was the first who put a roof above 4 walls, i will be the only one allowed to build houses". It has nothing to do with the final product. It is a property of an idea that nobody can easily use.

Software patents does not contain any code it's most of the time general idea. And often the owner of the patent is not the one who discovered the algo it is only the one who patented it first.

Do you know X-OR function to display a cursor on a black and white screen is patented ?
Amazon patented their "one click and buy" idea.
There's a list somewhere on the net of the most stupid software patents. It's impressive.

The content of this thread and what Torben wrote made me hates software patents even more.

If everything was patented since the begining of the history, i think the technologie today would not be as advanced as it is.

Ixox · Post by **Ixox** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:43 pm

[Deleted.... too out of topics]

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:50 pm

Torben wrote:
snooky wrote:Freeware is always and will always be much, much better than commersial stuff...it sounds better, works better, smells better and tastes better...and it won't cost you a dime...commersial devs needs to lower their prices and start thinking about how to make money with freeware...perhaps a small ad banner or such in the synth GUI..the advertising should cover the development costs no?
Naturally that banner should be for another free softsynth with a banner, right?

yes! advertisment(s) rox! can't get enough of it

New version of SIR out! But...