Hey Kassen,
2010/1/22 Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com>:
> Well, I was assuming that none of the bits that got ported to become ChiP
> were patches by people who aren't also in Smule.
Yes absolutely, I didn't mean to suggest that Ge or anyone else has
broken the terms of GPL code. In fact I'm sure he wouldn't have done
such a thing, and should have asserted that earlier, sorry.
I am pointing out that if someone came along who wanted to contribute
to ChucK with GPL patches, then Ge would be put in a difficult
position. He'd have to maintain this firewall between free software
and iphone apps. As you say, the person with the patch could fork the
code, but that doesn't make for a healthy free software ecology in my
opinion. Every time you fork a code base, you double the effort...
> If you would indeed demand that patches get accepted then you could call
> ChucK non-free because it's often not all that easy to get patches in.
If, as with rjlib, they don't have an internal fork for each license,
then it would be legally impossible to get GPL patches in.
> Maybe I misunderstand the exact issue that you are pointing out. If so you
> may need to clarify it and we may need to get some real comments form the
> people involved. For me the fragment of the list-post I quoted in my last
> mail is good enough but it may not address your problem.
Ok to clarify. I define a healthy free software community as a
codebase with a maintainer able to accept patches based on merit and
redistribute it as a nice codebase, all under the same free software
license. As it is, if I give Ge a super duper GPLd patch (unlikely,
because my code is scrappy as hell), I assume he'd be reluctant to
take it, because he wouldn't be able to use it with the rest of ChucK
on the iphone. Perhaps it makes it clearest if I point out I'd be
happier if ChucK was released under a BSD license and not a GPL
license. That said, personally I prefer to write code under the GPLv3
because I'd rather it didn't end up on the iphone.
I agree it would be good to hear from the man himself! Ge, are you listening?
I talked some rjdj people about this, and they agreed that there is a
problem here. There are a lot of people involved with differing
opinions but they're working on it, and producing great GPLv3d code in
the meantime.
> I believe SC uses a client-server model between the server and the language
> and this uses a network connection (most likely to local host). Network
> messages aren't realtime in the strict formal sense. They aren't guaranteed
> to arrive in order, in time or even at all, as I understand things.
Yes there is built-in latency to get around these problems.
"Realtime" is always going to be an illusion though, even in human
perception the notion of the present is known as specious. But OSC
NTP style timestamps are really accurate I think, and in practice the
latency deadline is always met (as opposed to chuck's sample-accurate
deadline, which I understand is not always met). Here's McCartney's
take on this issue:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1431#comment-16362
> Of course they will, most of the time, but that's a real difference.
There are networks inside a computer too, just because it's outside a
computer doesn't mean you can't make it work reliably enough. I have
had problems doing timing over a wireless network though.
> Personally I think it would be a very good thing if our esteemed colleagues
> / mortal enemies in the SC scene would adopt some more funny words of their
> own as funny words are funny.
Yes agreed, actually I like the ChucK humour a lot. Much more than
the python humour which is entirely derivative... The ruby
programming community really mourns Why?, who brought a lot of fun to
learning that language.
cheerio,
alex
--
http://yaxu.org/
Received on Fri Jan 22 2010 - 16:22:03 GMT