CLAP... thoughts?

[trackbout]

copy/pasting a github repo and calling it your own accomplishes absolutely nothing, unless you bring the entire community that is already using the library you copied with you. that's why no one cares if you do it, because no one will care.

[Urs]

At least I think everyone comes around to understand what the guys have done (I wasn't really part of this) is outstanding and simply magnificent. And magnificently simple. It is so much more than what I'd hoped for!

[jamcat]

That is not what I literally said.

So there are developers making properly coded VST3 plugins after all?

[jamcat]

They can adopt it - but they can not "take it over" in the sense of taking it away from anyone else.

They could effectively take control if their version becomes the dominant strain. Big companies like Microsoft do it all the time.

[10bd01]

They could effectively take control if their version becomes the dominant strain.

Cautious optimism is warranted for reasons like this - a proliferation of competing strains can have a deleterious effect depending on how much is "added" and how many become dependent on the "additions", though I'm not sure about "take control" because the code base will remain intact and available.

Silver Bullet Syndrome has rekt many.

[trackbout]

Big companies copy/paste open source repos and become the "dominant strain" all the time huh?

I guess it would be really easy to come up with a specific example then. I'll wait...

[dayjob]

Big companies copy/paste open source repos and become the "dominant strain" all the time huh?

I guess it would be really easy to come up with a specific example then. I'll wait...

edit: this isn't a good example.. but...

well... i hate to speak up on jamcat's behalf because i think he's been a bit weird about all this... but.... arturia put code from mutable instruments open source stuff into their synth. the microfreak. it didn't become a "dominant strain" though.

https://www.arturia.com/products/hardwa ... k/overview

details at link below.

in the end it didn't matter so much i guess.. at the time mutable was mostly operating in the modular world and arturia made a standalone synth.

i think the point does stand though that a platform like CLAP being taken over by steinberg or whoever in attempts to dominate its trajectory seems a bit of a stretch. it's not the actual product but the container for the product isn't it? they wouldn't have any authority over it..

the same way no one has authority over emilie's designs. people are still churning out clones of their modules and doing things inspired by their code and releasing them in various forms including max for live devices and various modular things.

edit: here's a link below. i don't want to derail the thread anymore than it has been already but the arturia/mutable story isn't "wild speculation".. btw i'm not out to get anyone and have no dog in this fight.. just mentioned it because it's a case of open source code being used by a larger company.

https://sonicstate.com/news/2019/01/26/ ... icrofreak/

[vertibration]

wild speculation.

[trackbout]

I don't know if the Arturia story is true, but even if it is that's a completely different thing.

People poach snippets of code from similar projects and bring them into their already existing project all the time. Sometimes they do it shadily, sometimes they credit the source. If Steinberg wanted to "steal" some ideas from CLAP and integrate them into VST3, that would be a GOOD thing.

jamcat is suggesting that "big companies" create an entirely new project, that originated by copying an entire open source project, and then somehow become the "dominant strain", which I guess means more people start using the new copied version of the open source project, although I'm not a virologist.

That literally never happens. The only way it ever could happen, is if the new copied project was also fully open source and MIT licensed, or the community that had been using and contributing code to a fully open source and MIT licensed project would never even consider it an option.

And even if that ever happened, again, the license would have to be the same, but the project would have to be somehow measurably better, so again, that would be a GOOD thing.

This spectre of a "takeover" or whatever that jamcat is trying to raise is a complete straw man. Nobody cares who owns the code if it's open source and has an MIT (or similar) license. The best ideas and best maintained projects win, and that's the whole point.

[jamcat]

Microsoft has a history of making their own versions of open standards and making everyone conform to theirs.

[trackbout]

Whenever you're ready to provide a specific example of whatever it is you're referring to, I'd love to learn about it, and compare it to Steinberg taking over CLAP.

[baconpaul]

I wrote a longer explanation about how standards bodies use licensing in one of the other threads. May help?

viewtopic.php?p=8455341#p8455341

[trackbout]

Great post! Does that clear anything up for you jamcat?

[Tj Shredder]

They can adopt it - but they can not "take it over" in the sense of taking it away from anyone else.

They could effectively take control if their version becomes the dominant strain. Big companies like Microsoft do it all the time.

Like Oracle did with Open Office? It was an epic fail and everybody is running Libre Office now…
You can’t take over an open source project against the community. That is the whole idea about open source… If you contribute significantly you are welcome…

[Music Engineer]

Microsoft has a history of making their own versions of open standards and making everyone conform to theirs.

Yes - I know. It's called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_ ... extinguish

I can't see something like that happening with CLAP though.