New version Linux Sampler 2.1 released

[glowrak guy]

http://www.kvraudio.com/news/linuxsampl ... dows-39406

[tramp]

For those of you who are interested in the news from the linuxsampler project, instead a re-direction to a other forum, here are the news from linuxsampler.org check our the changelog for more informations.

https://www.linuxsampler.org/

[glowrak guy]

For those who are sadly uninformed, the kvr NEWS page, is NOT a forum.

http://www.kvraudio.com

KVR do have a vast forum, with well over 100 subforums,
and quite a few linux professionals and experts are members among them.
(I myself am not an expert)
Any linux musician would be well served with a kvr account,
as consistant learning and sharing opportunities abound.

Kvr is a great and vast repository of MUSICIANS knowledge,
Maybe Tramp should find out WHO sent the LinuxSampler announcement there,
in the first place, and ridicule THEM first. I just relayed the good news
when I saw it had been missed or ignored, here!

For a little perspective, this entire forum lists about 75,000 total posts,
while a SINGLE long-standing linux forum topic at kvr, has over 200,000 views,
and many other linux discussions occur as they become relevant among the other
forum categories, like the official Bitwig and U-he subforums,
indicating substantial interest in linux as at least a niche alternative
for industrious creatives. There are even some positive mentions of
...wait for it...







Guitarix


'Who'd ah evahhh thunk it?'

[stanlea]

Concerning LinuxSampler, I still can't understand why they are improving the .gig handling : it's a dead format. Good news is the possibility of scripting sfz, and enhancements. Sadly, the license is still the same.

[Drumfix]

I'm still waiting for it to actually be a sampler, i.e. allow to record and process samples, set loop points, create crossfaded loops, slice, chop, trim, timestrech etc.
Right now its still only a sampleplayer.

[sysrqer]

Yeah that was probably my biggest disappointment with it as well.

[Lyberta]

For those who are sadly uninformed, the kvr NEWS page, is NOT a forum.

And for those who use Tor, KVR is locked behind CloudFlare.

Concerning LinuxSampler, I still can't understand why they are improving the .gig handling : it's a dead format.

Simple: Vendor lock-in. They want people to make instruments that can only be played with LinuxSampler. They want people to be locked-in to their proprietary software.

[sysrqer]

It's not the only software that uses the format though and it can use other formats, how can that possibly be vendor lock in?

[Lyberta]

I'm a little upset that you still think LinuxSampler is proprietary.
Contrary to Sforzando for example, I can port it to work on new systems (it works on FreeBSD!) and can modify code as needed.

But you can't put it in official Debian repo because Debian sells CDs and DVDs. We don't have our 4 fundamental freedoms so the software is proprietary.

From here:

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

That said, if scripting is part of libgig and/or gigedit which are FOSS, then it's fine.

[Baggypants]

I'm a little upset that you still think LinuxSampler is proprietary.
Contrary to Sforzando for example, I can port it to work on new systems (it works on FreeBSD!) and can modify code as needed.

But you can't put it in official Debian repo because Debian sells CDs and DVDs. We don't have our 4 fundamental freedoms so the software is proprietary.

That's where the big argument comes from then.

This is quite the big read, but it fits the conversation here.
http://www.louigiverona.com/?page=proje ... y_freedoms

Not everyone agrees these 4 freedoms are absolute true.

I think you've misunderstood the article you've linked. It's about the Justification of the four freedoms, the articles that Stallman has written to back his case. Indeed the article states right at the start.

It is, perhaps, also helpful to note what this treatise does not say:

it does not say that all of the problems raised by Stallman are unimportant
it does not say that some of these problems should not be solved by "free" software
it does not say that "free" software is not a very good and necessary idea

That last one is important. The article is an argument that states that Stallman, when writing about real world situations, doesn't do his research and is susceptible to writing propaganda.

The "truthiness" of the four freedoms isn't argued.

The fact is that the self-contradictory licence of Linux Sampler means that people who want to package it or distribute it risk a legal liability. Because of that licence it isn't free. It's source is available but it is privately owned by the developers, hence 'proprietary'.

[ssj71]

maybe I'm being picky about semantics here but IMHO
proprietary != nonfree != FLOSS

Linux sampler is "nonfree" but it certainly isn't proprietary. Personally I feel "limited freedom" would be the most appropriate term. It is not exclusively owned as proprietary software is, though its ownership is only shared on certain conditions. Nobody is saying this is ideal or wise, and its good to point out the flaws, but the LS devs are certainly not evil. I think falktx is arguing that we must stop demonizing them. I agree 100%. We've tried to discuss this before with them and they aren't inclined to change it. Let the sleeping dog lie.

The "truthiness" of the four freedoms isn't argued.

No but it is certainly questioned. I think its a valid point for falktx to link in this discussion. If the freedoms are not fundamental rights, then you can't paint proprietary code as wicked. I'm not saying they aren't, but that article tells us to hold off accusing devs of abusing us and start with proving the right to freedom of computing.

[nils]

Summary: LS terms of use are good enough for all users and they should name their license just "The Linux Sampler" to avoid confusion.

The problem was never that LinuxSampler chose the license they have. They can do whatever they want and this license is good enough for everyday usage for all user use-cases and, as many point out, even better than your average free-to-use software on Windows because porting here CAN be done, which is super important. It is also very nice and convenient that all the surrounding tools are truly GPL and interfacing with LS as user or power-user can be done without any problem.

The problem however IS that LinuxSampler, in my view, chooses to call its license "GPL" with the full intention to boost their reputation. This is a PR stunt and they are adamant not to speak about this topic and will quickly derail any discussion about it into something different. It is the dishonesty to make people think that they are GPL and their open intention not to make the most sensible step and just call it "The Linuxsampler License". Of course this demand has been made several times over the last decade, they are aware of it but choose to play the naive or ignorant party, and they fool only the uninformed.

[Baggypants]

[quote="ssj71"]maybe I'm being picky about semantics here but IMHO
proprietary != nonfree != FLOSS

You're now arguing about the meaning of English words. Meanings do change though the passage of time but I don't see why we need to rope proprietary in to the language dance at this time. Proprietary meaning: belonging or controlled as property. The developers of Linux Sampler specifically want to control the usage of their software. Free licences, such as the GPL specifically remove a developers ability to control the software. What's more bizarre is people being upset that people use a word in it's correct usage when it doesn't conform to what they want it to mean.

[tramp]

Meanings do change though the passage of time but I don't see why we need to rope proprietary in to the language dance at this time. Proprietary meaning: belonging or controlled as property. The developers of Linux Sampler specifically want to control the usage of their software.

I would agree here, and ain't see any issue with saying that LinuxSampler is proprietary Software. This didn't need to mean negative!!
They wont to protect there work against a special use-case, and they have all rights to do so, so, why not call it as it is?

Free licences, such as the GPL specifically remove a developers ability to control the software.

But, wait a moment, when we splitting hairs already here, we can go on a bit further. Even the GPL comes with some limitations to there users. And this limitation goes in the same direction then the one the LinuxSampler devs have chosen.
You are not allowed to distribute binary's from GPL'ed software, without distribute the source-code as well. Strongly taken, this is a limitation. To limit the use, you need to own it, so that you've the right to limit it. So, it becomes your property. So, even GPL'ed software becomes proprietary Software.

Even the more freely licence BSD, comes with a limitation, as you are not allowed to remove the Licence and author from the code.
So, is even BSD software proprietary software?

Only software released under the Public Domain could be used without any limitation, without a proprietary bit set on it.

I guess that is what falktx already mentioned when he said

" This is not black and white, there are middle grounds here, and LS stands on one of them."

and I fully agree here.

[Lyberta]

It is also very nice and convenient that all the surrounding tools are truly GPL and interfacing with LS as user or power-user can be done without any problem.

Actually not. libgig is GPL and GPL is copyleft. LinuxSampler backend is not compatible with GPL so all users of LinuxSampler binary and all users of Carla where LinuxSampler is linked to libgig commit copyright infringement.