headers
Niels Elburg | 2 Oct 2005 16:02
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

> Hi all,
> since nobody (apart from Niels) replied to my license query, and there is
> not much time until piksel and still a lot to do, I am forced to make the
> following assumptions:
>
> - Niels is happy with the current spec
> - Nobody has any objections to the documentation being under CC
>
> So what I plan to do:
>
> - correct a few spelling mistakes/obvious errors I noticed in the spec
> - put it under CC license, adding a sentence that the livido developers
> can change the spec until we have the 1.0 final version
>
> - start on a new livido.h LGPL reference implementation following the
> current spec.
> - start on LGPL utility library functions
> - start on sample plugin/host code
>
> We are still waiting for an updated palette list from Niels.
>
> Thanks for all your help,
> Gabriel.
>
>

Gabriel,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 2 Oct 2005 16:21
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> since nobody (apart from Niels) replied to my license query, and there
>> is
>> not much time until piksel and still a lot to do, I am forced to make
>> the
>> following assumptions:
>>
>> - Niels is happy with the current spec
>> - Nobody has any objections to the documentation being under CC
>>
>> So what I plan to do:
>>
>> - correct a few spelling mistakes/obvious errors I noticed in the spec
>> - put it under CC license, adding a sentence that the livido developers
>> can change the spec until we have the 1.0 final version
>>
>> - start on a new livido.h LGPL reference implementation following the
>> current spec.
>> - start on LGPL utility library functions
>> - start on sample plugin/host code
>>
>> We are still waiting for an updated palette list from Niels.
>>
>> Thanks for all your help,
>> Gabriel.
>>
>>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 2 Oct 2005 18:31
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>>
>> Gabriel,
>>
>> You cannot put the livido specification under the CC license. Its
>> nonsense and I wont let it happen.
>>
>> Livido is and will remain Free Software, licensed under the LGPL.
>>
>> The specification , our interface definition (!), will be licensed under
>> the LGPL and is part of our software package.
>
> Sure, the spec code will be, but you can't license a document under the
> LGPL, it is not sourcecode !
>
>>
>> All documentation we publish on Livido should be put under the GNU FDL.
>> Hence, this includes a document ABOUT the livido specification.
>
> I already looked at this and gave you my view.
>
> The FDL allows a document to be distributed and CHANGED !
>
> Can you imagine what will happen ? Some other group of developers could
> take our spec, change it around and then claim that theirs is the
> "official" livido spec !
>
> Can you really not understand what I am saying ???
>
> We need a documentation license which allows the spec to be distributed
> freely, but without authorised changes.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 2 Oct 2005 19:08
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


re,

of course if we don't all agree on the license it must stay as it is.

but he documentation license wasn't discussed so far, so we need to
choose, also considered that with the new approach implemented in Livido
during the last year the Specification is more important than the header
and implementation.

the FDL is kind-of deprecated by many FLOSS advocates,
including Debian developers.

the Creative Commons looks like a good candidate to me, alltough we must
choose the formula for it.

i agree with Niels that restricting Livido for changes by the original
committee of programmers is not a good idea, as it might prevent its
evolution path. i'm for leaving it free and open for changes, with full
attribution, so that one can recognize who did what and eventually
un/trust certain changes, IMO

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Martin Bayer | 3 Oct 2005 12:22
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

jaromil wrote:
> the FDL is kind-of deprecated by many FLOSS advocates,
> including Debian developers.
> 
> the Creative Commons looks like a good candidate to me, alltough we must
> choose the formula for it.

Also all current versions of CC licenses are considered non-free (in the
sense of the Debian Free Software Guidelines) by some debian-legal
members. [1][2]

Martin

[1] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
[2] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 00:39
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> re,
>
> of course if we don't all agree on the license it must stay as it is.
>
> but he documentation license wasn't discussed so far, so we need to
> choose, also considered that with the new approach implemented in Livido
> during the last year the Specification is more important than the header
> and implementation.
>
> the FDL is kind-of deprecated by many FLOSS advocates,
> including Debian developers.
>
> the Creative Commons looks like a good candidate to me, alltough we must
> choose the formula for it.
>
> i agree with Niels that restricting Livido for changes by the original
> committee of programmers is not a good idea, as it might prevent its
> evolution path. i'm for leaving it free and open for changes, with full
> attribution, so that one can recognize who did what and eventually
> un/trust certain changes, IMO
>
> ciao

Sure, we have a process for that, and that is the ticket system.

This is what I think: we should publish the 1.0 spec, and leave it as it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dave Griffiths | 3 Oct 2005 13:23
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec

> Leaving the 1.0 spec open to changes would be a disaster IMO; if the spec
> is changing from week to week then we will all be using different
> versions, and this totally defeats the object of having a spec in the
> first place.

standards are followed not because they are forced on you, but because
they are a shared benefit - if there is so little consensus that the spec
has to be changed every week, then you need a better spec, surely?

I don't know if the livido spec has been open to particually hot debate,
but the ladspa spec never suffered from this kind of destructive forking
(it's self defeating as soon as a couple of hosts and plugins exist
complying to the standard)

cheers,

dave

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 14:13
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>> Leaving the 1.0 spec open to changes would be a disaster IMO; if the
>> spec
>> is changing from week to week then we will all be using different
>> versions, and this totally defeats the object of having a spec in the
>> first place.
>
> standards are followed not because they are forced on you, but because
> they are a shared benefit - if there is so little consensus that the spec
> has to be changed every week, then you need a better spec, surely?

Well, we have reached consensus, I think, and that is the current spec you
see on dyne.org.

Though Niels STILL has not given his final OK - come on Niels, what's the
hold up :-) ?

We are also waiting for a new palette list from Niels...

>
> I don't know if the livido spec has been open to particually hot debate,
> but the ladspa spec never suffered from this kind of destructive forking
> (it's self defeating as soon as a couple of hosts and plugins exist
> complying to the standard)

Well, I am glad to hear that :-)

Gabriel.

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 14:27
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>
> Though Niels STILL has not given his final OK - come on Niels, what's the
> hold up :-) ?
>
> We are also waiting for a new palette list from Niels...
>

If I got a dollar every time I hear this I would be a rich man.

I wont give my final OK (for freezing the specification) until it is 
debated during piksel.

See you

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 15:06
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>>
>> Though Niels STILL has not given his final OK - come on Niels, what's
>> the
>> hold up :-) ?
>>
>> We are also waiting for a new palette list from Niels...
>>
>
> If I got a dollar every time I hear this I would be a rich man.
>
> I wont give my final OK (for freezing the specification) until it is
> debated during piksel.
>
>
> See you

So then we won't have a livido.h or the sample host/plugin code.

I must say I do feel a bit mislead, you had assured me several times you
would be porting all of your plugins to livido before piksel...

Now you suddenly decide we need to debate it a piksel :-) Still it's
probably a good idea, provided we don't change it too radically. But if we
don't have an agreed 1.0 spec by the end of piksel then I will pull out of
the project. It is costing me too much in terms of time/postponed work
etc.

Cheers,
Gabriel.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 15:20
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

>>>
>>> Though Niels STILL has not given his final OK - come on Niels, what's
>>> the
>>> hold up :-) ?
>>>
>>> We are also waiting for a new palette list from Niels...
>>>
>>
>> If I got a dollar every time I hear this I would be a rich man.
>>
>> I wont give my final OK (for freezing the specification) until it is
>> debated during piksel.
>>
>>
>> See you
>
> So then we won't have a livido.h or the sample host/plugin code.
>
> I must say I do feel a bit mislead, you had assured me several times you
> would be porting all of your plugins to livido before piksel...
>
> Now you suddenly decide we need to debate it a piksel :-) Still it's
> probably a good idea, provided we don't change it too radically. But if we
> don't have an agreed 1.0 spec by the end of piksel then I will pull out of
> the project. It is costing me too much in terms of time/postponed work
> etc.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 14:39
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
> I wont give my final OK (for freezing the specification) until it is
> debated during piksel.

i think it is a good idea to debate it and finish it there, as Andraz
will be also present, right?

please Salsaman, instead of rushing Niels :) try to cleanup and package
your current Lives/Livido code for a proposal of implementation, with
some regression tests if possible.

i'll soon write a status report about Livido resuming the development
that has flown in the past year on it.

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 15:10
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
>> I wont give my final OK (for freezing the specification) until it is
>> debated during piksel.
>
> i think it is a good idea to debate it and finish it there, as Andraz
> will be also present, right?
>
> please Salsaman, instead of rushing Niels :) try to cleanup and package
> your current Lives/Livido code for a proposal of implementation, with
> some regression tests if possible.

Jaromil, what is the point ? What if we debate it at piksel and decide to
completely tear up the spec ?

Bringing the LiVES livido code up to current spec will take at least a
month of coding, and in my present circumstances, that probably means 2
months elapsed time.

There is plenty of other much needed work I can be doing LiVES (e.g.
internal audio player, multitrack window, v4l2 input).

Gabriel.

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 16:31
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 03:10:41PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
> Bringing the LiVES livido code up to current spec will take at least a
> month of coding, and in my present circumstances, that probably means 2
> months elapsed time.

ok, i didn't knew, as your last notice about it has been let's use the
code into LiVES, so... ACK :)

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 17:33
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 03:10:41PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>> Bringing the LiVES livido code up to current spec will take at least a
>> month of coding, and in my present circumstances, that probably means 2
>> months elapsed time.
>
> ok, i didn't knew, as your last notice about it has been let's use the
> code into LiVES, so... ACK :)

Well, I have some code that could be cut and pasted into livido.h (the
core functions which are now in my livido-lib.c) after a bit of cleaning
up (probably half a day's work to make a livido.h from the current spec).

There are also functions in my livido-lib.c which could form part of the
livido utility library (nicer wrappers for getting/setting values). They
will need some updating for the new livido.h, another 1/2 day's work.
Then of course the utility library will need discussion and debate.

Updating all my plugins (about 20 of them) will take a while longer, maybe
a week or so. During this I could publish one of the simpler ones as a
plugin example.

Updating the host code is more complex, a couple of weeks work with testing.
Then there are the new features in the current spec, implementing all of
these will take a couple more weeks. LiVES is a pretty complex livido
host, as it already supports generators and key/mode mapping of livido
effects, so to strip it down to a simple host example would take a few
days.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 17:54
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 03:10:41PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>>> Bringing the LiVES livido code up to current spec will take at least a
>>> month of coding, and in my present circumstances, that probably means 2
>>> months elapsed time.
>>
>> ok, i didn't knew, as your last notice about it has been let's use the
>> code into LiVES, so... ACK :)
>
> Well, I have some code that could be cut and pasted into livido.h (the
> core functions which are now in my livido-lib.c) after a bit of cleaning
> up (probably half a day's work to make a livido.h from the current spec).
>
> There are also functions in my livido-lib.c which could form part of the
> livido utility library (nicer wrappers for getting/setting values). They
> will need some updating for the new livido.h, another 1/2 day's work.
> Then of course the utility library will need discussion and debate.
>
>
> Updating all my plugins (about 20 of them) will take a while longer, maybe
> a week or so. During this I could publish one of the simpler ones as a
> plugin example.
>
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 4 Oct 2005 02:31
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>
>
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 03:10:41PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>> Bringing the LiVES livido code up to current spec will take at least a
>>>> month of coding, and in my present circumstances, that probably means
>>>> 2
>>>> months elapsed time.
>>>
>>> ok, i didn't knew, as your last notice about it has been let's use the
>>> code into LiVES, so... ACK :)
>>
>> Well, I have some code that could be cut and pasted into livido.h (the
>> core functions which are now in my livido-lib.c) after a bit of cleaning
>> up (probably half a day's work to make a livido.h from the current
>> spec).
>>
>> There are also functions in my livido-lib.c which could form part of the
>> livido utility library (nicer wrappers for getting/setting values). They
>> will need some updating for the new livido.h, another 1/2 day's work.
>> Then of course the utility library will need discussion and debate.
>>
>>
>> Updating all my plugins (about 20 of them) will take a while longer,
>> maybe
>> a week or so. During this I could publish one of the simpler ones as a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 15:29
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:27:15PM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
>>> I wont give my final OK (for freezing the specification) until it is
>>> debated during piksel.
>>
>> i think it is a good idea to debate it and finish it there, as Andraz
>> will be also present, right?
>>
>> please Salsaman, instead of rushing Niels :) try to cleanup and package
>> your current Lives/Livido code for a proposal of implementation, with
>> some regression tests if possible.
>
> Jaromil, what is the point ? What if we debate it at piksel and decide to
> completely tear up the spec ?
>

There nothing more rewarding than to find out that a system is 
conceptually wrong from the beginning. It will lead to innovation
and eventually to a better system.

> Bringing the LiVES livido code up to current spec will take at least a
> month of coding, and in my present circumstances, that probably means 2
> months elapsed time.
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 16:32
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 03:29:45PM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
> There nothing more rewarding than to find out that a system is 
> conceptually wrong from the beginning. It will lead to innovation
> and eventually to a better system.

we've done that with Livido already once
time for some reward indeed ;)

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 10:38
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> re,
>>
>> of course if we don't all agree on the license it must stay as it is.
>>
>> but he documentation license wasn't discussed so far, so we need to
>> choose, also considered that with the new approach implemented in Livido
>> during the last year the Specification is more important than the header
>> and implementation.
>>
>> the FDL is kind-of deprecated by many FLOSS advocates,
>> including Debian developers.
>>
>> the Creative Commons looks like a good candidate to me, alltough we must
>> choose the formula for it.
>>
>> i agree with Niels that restricting Livido for changes by the original
>> committee of programmers is not a good idea, as it might prevent its
>> evolution path. i'm for leaving it free and open for changes, with full
>> attribution, so that one can recognize who did what and eventually
>> un/trust certain changes, IMO
>>
>> ciao
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 13:59
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>
>
> re -
>
> Like I said yesterday I am against a CC No Change license. The risc
> of one developer beeing dominant will have an effect in the negative.
>

I'm not really following you.

The spec is done (we hope), so how can one developer be "dominant" ?

> By using the CC No Change license we thus greatly risc not beeing able
> to reach agreements, there is no consensus , no due process and
> we keep others from participating in active development (other then that
> they may stand aside and yell at us by means of tickets)

Sure, everybody will be able to create tickets, everybody will have equal
say (though of course, those who are actually IMPLEMENTING livido should
be given priority). Why do you have a problem with this ?

>
> The Open Office project did not put their API and open document
> specification under the CC No Change license either.
>

Is that so ? You are talking about the opendoc spec from OASIS ? What
license are they using for the document ?

Still the chance of anybody forking the opendoc standard is minimal, since
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 14:24
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


>>
>>
>> re -
>>
>> Like I said yesterday I am against a CC No Change license. The risc
>> of one developer beeing dominant will have an effect in the negative.
>>
>
> I'm not really following you.
>
> The spec is done (we hope), so how can one developer be "dominant" ?
>
>
>> By using the CC No Change license we thus greatly risc not beeing able
>> to reach agreements, there is no consensus , no due process and
>> we keep others from participating in active development (other then that
>> they may stand aside and yell at us by means of tickets)
>
> Sure, everybody will be able to create tickets, everybody will have equal
> say (though of course, those who are actually IMPLEMENTING livido should
> be given priority). Why do you have a problem with this ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The Open Office project did not put their API and open document
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 14:59
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>
>>>
>>>
>>> re -
>>>
>>> Like I said yesterday I am against a CC No Change license. The risc
>>> of one developer beeing dominant will have an effect in the negative.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not really following you.
>>
>> The spec is done (we hope), so how can one developer be "dominant" ?
>>
>>
>>> By using the CC No Change license we thus greatly risc not beeing able
>>> to reach agreements, there is no consensus , no due process and
>>> we keep others from participating in active development (other then
>>> that
>>> they may stand aside and yell at us by means of tickets)
>>
>> Sure, everybody will be able to create tickets, everybody will have
>> equal
>> say (though of course, those who are actually IMPLEMENTING livido should
>> be given priority). Why do you have a problem with this ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 11:30
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 10:38:08AM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
> Like I said yesterday I am against a CC No Change license. The risc
> of one developer beeing dominant will have an effect in the negative.

as i also said yesterday, i agree with Niels on this.

being three people left to work on it helps to take decisions quicker
than it has been so far.

so now i'd say we can put an attribution-sharealike CC license on it.

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 14:08
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 10:38:08AM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
>> Like I said yesterday I am against a CC No Change license. The risc
>> of one developer beeing dominant will have an effect in the negative.
>
> as i also said yesterday, i agree with Niels on this.
>
> being three people left to work on it helps to take decisions quicker
> than it has been so far.
>
> so now i'd say we can put an attribution-sharealike CC license on it.
>
> ciao

I think this is a big mistake. I predict we will see forked versions of
the spec.

Regards,
Gabriel.

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 14:26
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:08:52PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
> I think this is a big mistake.
> I predict we will see forked versions of the spec.

that will be a signal of one or more of these cases being true:

1) our spec sucks

2) our applications are not so interesting to be compatible with

3) our plugins are not so interesting to be compatible with

i'd rather leave all these possibilities open.

i like David Griffith's email in this thread, says all i need to say.

a standard that is closed to modification is a monopoly.
people will speak the same language because they need,
not because they are forced too, IMHO

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 14:35
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:08:52PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>> I think this is a big mistake.
>> I predict we will see forked versions of the spec.
>
> that will be a signal of one or more of these cases being true:
>
> 1) our spec sucks
>
> 2) our applications are not so interesting to be compatible with
>
> 3) our plugins are not so interesting to be compatible with
>
> i'd rather leave all these possibilities open.
>

There are other darker possibilites:

4) deliberate sabotage

5) Embrace and extend

Gabriel.

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 14:52
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


> > that will be a signal of one or more of these cases being true:
> >
> > 1) our spec sucks
> >
> > 2) our applications are not so interesting to be compatible with
> >
> > 3) our plugins are not so interesting to be compatible with
> >
> > i'd rather leave all these possibilities open.
> >
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:35:03PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
> There are other darker possibilites:
> 
> 4) deliberate sabotage

if you live in fear, you live no good.

shifting the topic, that's the core of the psychosis affecting the USA
this decade (and hopefully only this decade).

restrict freedom to insure your security is not a good idea, and is
already leading to major problems in our so called "occidental society".
babylon is the place where people oppresses other people by forcing them
to do things, then they live in the fear of revenge, so they oppress
more.

in case you have people sabotaging you, you should ask yourself why,
what is the problem making them so bad against you, and solve it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 14:42
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:

>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:08:52PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>>> I think this is a big mistake.
>>> I predict we will see forked versions of the spec.
>>
>> that will be a signal of one or more of these cases being true:
>>
>> 1) our spec sucks
>>
>> 2) our applications are not so interesting to be compatible with
>>
>> 3) our plugins are not so interesting to be compatible with
>>
>> i'd rather leave all these possibilities open.
>>
>
> There are other darker possibilites:
>
> 4) deliberate sabotage
>
> 5) Embrace and extend
>
> Gabriel.
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 3 Oct 2005 17:47
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec

>
>
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 02:08:52PM +0200, salsaman <at> xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>> I think this is a big mistake.
>>>> I predict we will see forked versions of the spec.
>>>
>>> that will be a signal of one or more of these cases being true:
>>>
>>> 1) our spec sucks
>>>
>>> 2) our applications are not so interesting to be compatible with
>>>
>>> 3) our plugins are not so interesting to be compatible with
>>>
>>> i'd rather leave all these possibilities open.
>>>
>>
>> There are other darker possibilites:
>>
>> 4) deliberate sabotage
>>
>> 5) Embrace and extend
>>
>> Gabriel.
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 18:14
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


>>
>> 8) We want to fork Livido so other applications cannot use our plugins
>>     but we can still use theirs through backwards compatibility
>>     (overlaps with 5.)
>
> Well, I don't plan on doing this myself, the current spec has everything I
> need for now and for all my future plans in LiVES.
>
> The only thing I would add is a "display_func" to a very limited number of
> plugins, and besides it would be optional for the host to implement this.
>
>

We have not yet come close enough to tackle the problem of automatic 
(toolkit independent) GUI generation.
We already dropped the GUI port from the livido specification so we
could more easily agree on the core system.
Piksel is an opportunity to discuss the possibilities of a GUI port.

>
>>
>> 9) We never studied the inner workings of other applications
>
> Your points 6,7 and 9 are not valid. When we first set about designing
> livido we agreed we would find the common denominator between all our
> apps.
> That does not imply studdying the code of every video application which
> exists.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 5 Oct 2005 13:36
Favicon

Livido spec - License


Hello all,

After some stormy discussions on the Livido license it is time to compare 
and see what course to take.

Garbriel says:
    - put the specification document under the CC No Change license
      because it will protect against subversioning.

Jaromil says:
    - It must be an open project , with free modification and participation
      by everyone.

I agree with Jaromil but would rather apply it only to the SDK and example 
host / plugins.

Having the specification freely modifiable by everyone 
will lead to countless subversioning which leads (eventually) to 
incompatibility between the subversioned specifications.
The problem at hand here is that backwards compatibility would not
be able to maintain itself - A sister specification could easily
wrap all existing Livido plugins but the new plugins conform to
the sister specification will be incompatible with other hosts.
I think it is clear to anyone that this leads to chaos.

Basically there are thus 2 choices:
  1. reserve all rights for modification of the specification document
    (either by CC license or a (C) All rights reserved)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gisle Fr0ysland | 9 Oct 2005 02:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec - License

Wednesday 05 October 2005 13:36, skrev Niels Elburg:
> I call to a vote among Livido developers to choose which course
> to take and would like to ask the List to share their thoughts as what
> they think is the best course to take from a practical point of view.
>
> My vote will surprisingly go to option 1 since a freely changeable
> specification will have no practical value and will thus be meaningless.

Democracy rules!
And normally with a deadline, 
so maybe this will work if you set a deadline?
Hopefully before piksel05 ;)

cheers
-gisle

--

-- 
+---gif <at> bek.no +47329234+4790665018c.sundtsgt.55,5004bg. 
www.xn--frysland-64a.com
 ---+ http://mob.bek.no

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 9 Oct 2005 14:38
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec - License


On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 02:45:51AM +0200, Gisle Fr0ysland wrote:
> Democracy rules!

i firmly dislike democracy when applied in small groups like ours, since
it leads to the prevarication of minorities and general lack of
consensus.

anyway please consider i already expressed my opinion about this topic
earlier in the thread, i'm absolutely in favour of a free license
according to the principles that we agreed upon at the very beginning of
this project, in which honestly i wouldn't have invested a single line
of code if i could have imagined it was going in this direction.

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 9 Oct 2005 15:23
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec - License

jaromil wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 02:45:51AM +0200, Gisle Fr0ysland wrote:
>  
>
>>Democracy rules!
>>    
>>
>
>i firmly dislike democracy when applied in small groups like ours, since
>it leads to the prevarication of minorities and general lack of
>consensus.
>
>anyway please consider i already expressed my opinion about this topic
>earlier in the thread, i'm absolutely in favour of a free license
>according to the principles that we agreed upon at the very beginning of
>this project, in which honestly i wouldn't have invested a single line
>of code if i could have imagined it was going in this direction.
>
>ciao
>  
>
Jaromil, remember, this is only the license for the spec document itself.

We can make other pages, e.g. an API description under the FDL, but 
keeping the spec itself unchanging.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 9 Oct 2005 15:01
Favicon

Re: Livido spec - License


On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, jaromil wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 02:45:51AM +0200, Gisle Fr0ysland wrote:
>> Democracy rules!
>
> i firmly dislike democracy when applied in small groups like ours, since
> it leads to the prevarication of minorities and general lack of
> consensus.
>
> anyway please consider i already expressed my opinion about this topic
> earlier in the thread, i'm absolutely in favour of a free license
> according to the principles that we agreed upon at the very beginning of
> this project, in which honestly i wouldn't have invested a single line
> of code if i could have imagined it was going in this direction.
>
> ciao
>

Are you suggesting you favour an informal specification , free of change 
and with that inviting numerous subversions and general incompatibility 
problems ? What or who's version of what spec will be the 'standard' ? 
Presumably all of them, meaning we will have no uniform way to share plugins, thus
completely missing our objective(s).

The goals set out at the beginning of the Livido project was to provide a
free SDK , free example host code and free plugins with the hope of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 9 Oct 2005 15:30
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec - License


On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 03:01:24PM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
> Are you suggesting you favour an informal specification , free of change 
> and with that inviting numerous subversions and general incompatibility 
> problems ? What or who's version of what spec will be the 'standard' ? 

nope, i'm suggesting we make a little step back and show some more
humility to other developers that might adopt the plugin scheme, since i
doubt we can hold a reference position for everyone around, even if we
spent a lot of thinkering about it.

i also have experience of generic stubborness and pleonastic discussions
among you and Salsaman, which makes me doubt it can be ever useful to
have only us three as an authoritative committee for the specification.
i mean no offense here, plus i think the current spec is good, i'm just
questioning about the method.

learning from the case of LADSPA, the success of an architecture like
Livido lies in it's wide adoption, but right now we don't even have a
reference implementation and you already think of closing the spec
and what means closing? to anyone else than us?!

It might make sense to freeze the specification after the first three or
four applications are fully supporting Livido and exchanging components
already, not before, since the spec might need more adjustements while
development faces concrete issues. In such a situation i would be
neutral to the decision of freezing (and not closing), if not in favour.

But right now the decision is being taken on the basis of no
implementation.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 9 Oct 2005 22:49
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec - License

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 03:01:24PM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
>> Are you suggesting you favour an informal specification , free of change
>> and with that inviting numerous subversions and general incompatibility
>> problems ? What or who's version of what spec will be the 'standard' ?
>
> nope, i'm suggesting we make a little step back and show some more
> humility to other developers that might adopt the plugin scheme, since i
> doubt we can hold a reference position for everyone around, even if we
> spent a lot of thinkering about it.

Sure, that is why:

a) we will have (I hope) a livido presentation  <at>  piksel and take on board
whatever comments come.

b) we plan to freeze the spec (final version 1.0) at piksel

c) after this we will have the ticket system to discuss any further
changes for the next version of the spec.

However, it is impossible to code against a constantly moving target.
Livido is now at the core of LiVES for example, and I've already had to
rewrite this code twice.

>
> i also have experience of generic stubborness and pleonastic discussions
> among you and Salsaman, which makes me doubt it can be ever useful to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 9 Oct 2005 09:24
Favicon

Re: Livido spec - License


On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Gisle Fr0ysland wrote:

> Wednesday 05 October 2005 13:36, skrev Niels Elburg:
>> I call to a vote among Livido developers to choose which course
>> to take and would like to ask the List to share their thoughts as what
>> they think is the best course to take from a practical point of view.
>>
>> My vote will surprisingly go to option 1 since a freely changeable
>> specification will have no practical value and will thus be meaningless.
>
> Democracy rules!
> And normally with a deadline,
> so maybe this will work if you set a deadline?
> Hopefully before piksel05 ;)
>
> cheers
> -gisle
>

The deadline is 14 october.

  - Niels

_______________________________________________
piksel-dev mailing list
piksel-dev <at> bek.no
http://plot.bek.no/mailman/listinfo/piksel-dev
http://www.piksel.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
salsaman | 5 Oct 2005 14:01
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Livido spec - License

>
> Hello all,
>
> After some stormy discussions on the Livido license it is time to compare
> and see what course to take.
>
> Garbriel says:
>     - put the specification document under the CC No Change license
>       because it will protect against subversioning.
>
> Jaromil says:
>     - It must be an open project , with free modification and
> participation
>       by everyone.
>
>
> I agree with Jaromil but would rather apply it only to the SDK and example
> host / plugins.
>
> Having the specification freely modifiable by everyone
> will lead to countless subversioning which leads (eventually) to
> incompatibility between the subversioned specifications.
> The problem at hand here is that backwards compatibility would not
> be able to maintain itself - A sister specification could easily
> wrap all existing Livido plugins but the new plugins conform to
> the sister specification will be incompatible with other hosts.
> I think it is clear to anyone that this leads to chaos.
>
> Basically there are thus 2 choices:
>   1. reserve all rights for modification of the specification document
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Niels Elburg | 3 Oct 2005 12:20
Favicon

Re: Livido spec


On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, jaromil wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 10:38:08AM +0200, Niels Elburg wrote:
>> Like I said yesterday I am against a CC No Change license. The risc
>> of one developer beeing dominant will have an effect in the negative.
>
> as i also said yesterday, i agree with Niels on this.
>
> being three people left to work on it helps to take decisions quicker
> than it has been so far.
>
> so now i'd say we can put an attribution-sharealike CC license on it.
>
> ciao
>
> - --
> jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
>

An attribution-sharealike CC license would still allow subversioning 
Livido. Please forget about CC entirely, because the license is simply
not suitable.

To publish an open specification, which we are now trying to do
should meet at least a few requirements, the first one is to define
our specification package:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jaromil | 3 Oct 2005 12:44
Gravatar

Re: Livido spec


ok, no CC then?
looking forward for some suggestion from FSF.
probably FDL is not so bad after all?

ciao

--

-- 
 jaromil,  dyne.org rasta coder,  http://rastasoft.org
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane