Ok, i'm in.
The last time i saw, felt and recovered, from a mailing list 'discussion' about the LS license, it was after a conciliatory cognac that i had a good think about this, and offer the following:
I find It slightly hypocritical of any mainstream distro to effectively 'ban' LS for it's license, when there are still elements of the LS package included in repos, and that further complicates things for the non coder/dumb user like me, who has to hire a red wine swilling priest, and exorcise the old bits before installing the new. I figure it's all in or all out, as the practical considerations of one hairy calf in, and one hairy calf out does no one any good. So it seems there's already a rather relaxed view of the user's experience, or inexperience, on the part of the main players who have made it clear they're building for the hordes, with the 'challenge Win' gleam in their eye. (And i can hardly fault them for that, given my own wonderful experience with linux audio.)
The bit that seems to bring out the flag wavers on all sides is the 'never the twain shall meet' syndrome. There's a swell of determination that an opensource license of any flavour is determindedly copy left, and brave and courageous souls work tirelessly to maintain that gap. Rightly so, imho, as Blinky Bill may or may not have already raided opensource for ideas, or the pursuit of patents, accompanied by a troll or two. And i'm sorry to say this, but that gap, and the fight to keep it as wide as possible, does lend one to think there's those who will, by nature of their enthusiasm, see nothing but a 'pure' end result.
Personally, and this may well have much to do with a practical neccessity on my part, i don't have a problem with the license, and it's quite clear what the rules are, decided by the devs, as is the case with any app or code written. Where is the conflict in clearly and unambiguously stating that there is 1 exception, that captures and protects the devs work?
That trainwreck of a discussion proved to me that are many shades of black, as each contributor put his or her viewpoint, armed with their own decision and judgement of what is correct or not, and even as a collective of purity were unable to agree amongst themselves where the 'line' should be. It's hardly surprising that users, intent on learning how to compile this excellent programme would get confused, shrug their shoulders and drift off. If one were to be pedantic, the LS devs could in fact have a case for asking if the discussion contributors were seeking to limit, or in some way strangle the growth of LS, and the work of its devs, just to prove a point, to THEIR satisfaction. That would frankly be a road to disaster, as trying to satisfy everyone's idea of what is correct would result in yet another discussion, committee, etc...
Perhaps the license itself should be examined, and an inclusion that specifically caters for this particular exception should be included. I fear though that such an idea, and the ensuing discussion would, again, go on for ever and a day, and nothing would get done.
There's another aspect to this too, that leads me to think Linux could do with a few rebels from time to time. (Hugely ironic for me, as linux devs, are by nature of the consequence of sticking it to commercial and frequently ruthless operators, rebels by nature) What about an opensource sample format? I've read numerous discussions on this, and yet we're no closer to an agreed standard, and framework. I've never been more aware of my inability to code, because i'd go ahead and write a standard format, then let the committee/discussion commence, after the event. I don't doubt this has been tried, by talented people, but none of us are getting any younger, and there's an opportunity that seems to keep getting missed?
So is the regular appraisal of the LS license a lesson for us all in keeping the 'purity' of opensource, (a worthy crusade), or yet another opportunity to talk about it, and have yet another......... enthusiastic discussion?
I wouldn't blame Christian and the team for a second if they got bored with the talk, and built a sample format of their own. At least it's a beginning, and using the LS license discussion as a benchmark of evidence, another chance for the purity team to don their togas and pontificate about the worth of such a format.
Just maybe the LS license discussion, that may previously have been an earnest attempt to clarify a position, has deteriorated into somewhat of a red herring, distracting from a chance to progress further, and develop ever more user friendly methods of getting the linux face into more hands, and PCs. I've seen a wealth of progress over the last ten months from people i consider extremely gifted, and i'd hate to see the 'old gardening glove' get dragged out of the potting shed yet again, for another round of discussion that would end in the same place, with everyone satisfied that they've waved THEIR interpretation flag, and standing in the same place that they were when they started.
I'm a linux convert, and more than willing to enthuse and encourage about the opportunities it presents for us audio/midi/make some noise chaps, but pragmatically, going over and over the same subject, with the same end result, isn't going to endear our favourite OS to as many potentially willing users as we'd want.
The value of the FSF is powerful on many levels, and i'm all for it. Lumping the exception in the LS license in among the heavyweights the FSF was designed to keep out of the picture is like sticking a howitzer in a mouse's backside.
Overkill. (imho)
On a lighter note, and i address this to my learned and wise colleague, Dave, i have two more groups that should be added to your list of undesirables.
Rap.
Country and Western.
Now THERE's a discussion worth having..
Regards to you all,
Alex.