<div dir="ltr">Hi Jonathan,<div>Thanks. That's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. I thought WebPD was dead. Nice to see it alive and kicking.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jancsika@yahoo.com" target="_blank">jancsika@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif">To answer your last question: have a look at webpd:<br><a href="https://github.com/sebpiq/WebPd" target="_blank">https://github.com/sebpiq/WebPd</a><br>
<br>There's a simple demo patch here:<br><a href="http://sebpiq.github.io/WebPd/sound-check/sound-check.html" target="_blank">http://sebpiq.github.io/WebPd/sound-check/sound-check.html</a><br><br>That's Pd's basic audio engine and message passing system running in javascript. So in terms of open source, the efficiency is undeniable. To run Max/MSP in a web page, they'd have to figure out some complex way to protect their proprietary code while still making it possible to make sounds by adding a script in the html. The only practical thing I could think of is running a centralized service, but again that costs money and maintenance where a decentralized lib like webpd runs on the user's device.<br>
<br>Addressing the oddity of using proprietary software (IOS) to point out the
benefits of open source:<br><br>Unfortunately the open source definition was designed to subtly hide the ethical reasons for doing open source development. The reasoning for this was quite straightforward-- "share with your neighbor" doesn't attract business dollars. So open source advocates focus on efficiency, like the ability to plug a 3-clause BSD-licensed library into just about any device you want, even a device that is locked down and requires the final app to be proprietary.<br>
<br>This is equivalent to teaching the scientific method, but downplaying the importance of reproducibility for some seemingly practical purpose. If enough scientists are weak on such a fundamental aspect of their job due to bad education it will degrade their ability to carry out meaningful, reproducible experiments.<br>
<br>So open source advocates can't have it both ways. If they purposely exclude the golden rule and "user freedom" from their
marketing materials because it's such a drag, I don't see how they can complain when the efficiency of their dev model takes users and business to places the initiative didn't want them to end up. Whether it's Google's centralized services or Apple and Android smartphones that spy on the user, you can't fight back if you aren't willing to state the fundamental principle that users must be free to determine how the devices they own actually operate.<br>
<br>If anyone wants to read a principled statement on user freedom, it's here:<br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>-Jonathan</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div style="display:block"> <br> <br> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial"> On Sunday,
February 9, 2014 9:24 PM, Simon Wise <<a href="mailto:simonzwise@gmail.com" target="_blank">simonzwise@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> </font> </div> <div>On 10/02/14 11:53, Pall Thayer wrote:<br>> I'm giving a presentation this week. In a way, it's a counter argument to a<br>
> recent presentation on Max/MSP. One of the things that I want to highlight<br>> is the "open sourceness" of PD. libpd presents a very good argument and<br>> I'll be highlighting a project I was involved with that produced an IOS app<br>
> that used libpd as the audio engine. Is there anything else I should be<br>> considering besides the obvious points of open source being open source.<br>> Concrete examples of PD's open sourceness trumping proprietary technologies?<br>
<br>IOs is an odd choice for talking about open source when the only way to install <br>such an app in a device (without jailbreaking it or paying the developer tithe) <br>is by licensing the binary closed source (on their
terms) to Apple to distribute <br>via their platform-monopoly app store, which will not distribute the sources or <br>GPL or LGPL apps?<br><br>Certainly licenses such as libpd's BSD like one do allow reuse of the code in <br>
any app, open source or otherwise, but then is that use still open source???<br><br><br>Simon<br><br>_______________________________________________<br><a>Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
<br><br></div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
<a href="mailto:Pd-list@iem.at">Pd-list@iem.at</a> mailing list<br>
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> <a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>*****************************<br>Pall Thayer<br>artist<br><a href="http://pallthayer.dyndns.org" target="_blank">http://pallthayer.dyndns.org</a><br>*****************************
</div>