Highly automated digital audio workstation extensible in Guile
zrythm.org
zrythm.org
OTOH, Reaper's lead developer was thinking of doing that at the beginning of Reaper's life, decided against it, and we can see how (well) that worked out! :)
For what it's worth, I find Reaper to be a lot better than Ardour in general. It just feels 100% professional and slick. The Ardour interface comes across like your typical GTK app, sluggish and glitchy with that constant feeling that something ain't right. You should have moved to QT a long time ago.
I don't bother to listen (much) to critiques of Ardour's GUI. Every week I get an email that tells me it is totally pile of crap and I should feel embarrassed to even consider it usable, and another telling me how smooth and intuitive it is, much better than any other DAW.
When people say things like "Ardour's workflow for doing <X> is a bit clunky - it takes 6 mouse clicks, but if you did it like <this> it would only take 3" ... I try to listen to that and incorporate these kinds of ideas.
Reaper does a bunch of things that Ardour doesn't. Ardour does a bunch of things that Reaper doesn't. Reaper does some things that we both do better than Ardour, and vice versa.
"300k+ LOC application should have moved to <other GUI toolkit a long time ago" suggests that you have never moved 175k lines of GUI code between toolkits, regardless of which application and which toolkit you're discussing.
Also, Reaper doesn't use Qt.
I haven't had any luck getting responses to bug reports, and anyhow it seems that ZynAddSubFX should be a sufficiently common plugin that if this bug were easy to reproduce, someone else would have stumbled upon it by now (and so it probably arises due to a weird interaction with something else that's particular to my setup).
I have basically stuck with OpenMPT after all this time, since most of the time I want to really sequence something on the grid, and only deviate from that if really necessary(and then usually turn to Mixcraft which has a decent set of defaults and built-in plugins and presets for most things).
Ableton Live changed everything, even for the sequencer-originated DAWs like Cubase, and it's true that in Ardour we haven't (yet) attempted to tackle that sort of thing.
Stay tuned though!
You might also want to try LMMS. Pair it up with ZynAddSubFX as the synth and you have a pretty competent studio.
Relevant submission: https://midination.com/free-music-production-software/
So many people have "Free means it steals your data" beaten into their heads at this point.
This is of course referring to the general population. I would assume that people on HN have no issues with Libre-Free vs Beer-Free.
It's amazing how challenging it is in 2020 to have a simple path for creating a cross-platform UI that actually looks good and is not aimed at developers as users, but rather competes with the polish of established applications. Unless you go with Electron or pay thousands per year for a Qt license, options are quite limited.
Autodesk Maya notably does not use a commercial Qt license, they use it under the LGPL. You can find the source code for their patches of Qt on their website. [2]
[1] https://kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
[2] https://www.autodesk.com/company/legal-notices-trademarks/op...
Specifically this:
> In case The Qt Company would ever attempt to close down Open Source Qt, the foundation is entitled to publish Qt under the BSD license. This notable legal guarantee strengthens Qt. It creates trust among developers, contributors and customers.
The reasons for this are that GUI widget kits are generalized to the least common denominator. They are written with a specific, narrow usage in mind and will never fit your application to the degree you need. And in some cases the author of a certain widget tries to do this, and the widget succumbs to the weight of complexity required to be all things to all people. Not even GIMP uses only GTK+.
The second reason that staying in one widget kit is bad is because it's a competitive world out there. You need to differentiate. That's not easy when every app looks and feels the same because they all use the same tool kit.
In addition to all of this, different OSes have different UX. A Qt app on Mac is not going to be identical to a Qt app on Linux. Assuming the Qt app is written to the guidelines of the OS and not just doing whatever it wants. Internally, the app will do what is best (e.g. photoshop canvas), but will play nice with the external window manager, accessibility, etc.
I might be wrong, but it seems that Bitwig Studio, probably the most popular cross-platform DAW, uses JavaFX for the UI.
Sounds like it’s probably not much of a Java app.
Automagic redirect wasn't such a good idea here.
Is there any resource about this Guile extensibility?
> Alexandros Theodotou
> I am a native-level English and Greek speaker born in Cyprus, currently based in the UK.
Where did Korean developers came from?
I'm located in Switzerland, with language preferences for en_EN, de_DE and de_CH, but was redirected by 301 to /ja/ (the japanese language page).
There's overzealous and then there's malfunctioning...
This looks good, I've been making music with Ardour lately and this has a few features I wish Ardour did.
But - too bad it's not free software. It's unfortunately licensed under an EULA, the GNU AGPLv3 - which, as much as the FSF would like you to believe otherwise, is not a Free Software license, as it violates Freedom 0, your right to use/run the software however you wish without conditions. The AGPL imposes requirements not only on people who distribute the software (like a simple copyright license, e.g. the GPLs, BSD, Apache, etc), but also on people who merely use it (it requires you to make the source code available to anyone who even uses the software indirectly, e.g. as a service).
So I might use if it's good, but I won't be contributing patches to it, as I would with other software like Ardour, and I won't use it in a live setting. I can't in good conscience spend my free time contributing to software behind a EULA.
(I haven't the foggiest clue why they picked this license either; its main purpose is to extend the GPL's virality to network services to the detriment of user freedom, but this isn't a network service.)
I don't like GPL licenses myself, I prefer BSD/MIT/etc.
But that aside, this has very little to do with this program, and it very little (if any) impediment to using this kind of program.
It might prevent a company from building a commercial closed source version (which is fine, we have plenty of commercial DAWs already), and it might prevent a company from somehow turning this into SaaS. Both of those seem like very remote and unlike possibilities, even if this was non GPLv3.
The GPL may deserve some criticism from a business point of view, but how many of the businesses that criticize it openly, or attempt to dodge it covertly, were brought to success thanks to developers who could become what they are by studying and modifying code that without the GPL would have never been published?
It's actually a common misconception: that companies publish code because GPL forces them to. In practice, it works the other way around: first you make the decision whether to publish the code or not, only then you choose software with appropriate license.
A program (DAW) that is built on integrating with third party code but limits what code you can integrate with is rather contradictory.
For the AGPL, you cannot link against something that isn't also (A)GPL. That means that if you integrate it any tighter than 'running it standalone on an OS' you're probably linking it.
It may not be obvious how the AGPL would impact your ability to use a DAW, but it does. Just two days ago I was at band practice with a band I play in, and we decided that for one song the guitarist, who didn't have a part on it, would play a synth running on my computer, via a MIDI keyboard. That's a computer network by most definitions. That means the guitarist is now a user of the software on my computer. I was using Carla (LGPLed) as a plug-in host, but had I been using this instead, I would've been obligated to inform him of the fact and offer the source code.
In other words, this means I would never consider using this DAW in a live environment with any external interaction at all (no inputs other than my own, that includes no microphones or analog inputs that might pick up third party signals), lest I become legally obligated to start explaining what I'm running and where to get the source to everyone around me.
Now I bet the authors of this software didn't think of such use cases and don't care about them - and this is why the AGPL is evil, because it encroaches on users' rights well beyond you might think at first glance.
I mean I seen proprietary and open source software prompting a license popup or message so you are informed that this program offers no warranty etc , when you use a proprietary tool and lend your device to your friend do you also make the argument that your friend did not clicked the proprietary EULA or he did not read the MIT/BSD disclaimers and you first make them read those licenses/EULAs?
However, the AGPL is an EULA, so in fact it should be included in click-through screens in insallers, unlike every other open source license.
The AGPL doesn't require you to distribute modifications only if you distribute the software (that would be a copyright-based requirement and it's what the GPL does). It requires you to distribute modifications if you offer access to the software. That's a huge difference. And as I wrote in the other comment below, the interpretation of "making medications" is horrendously ambiguous, and can be interpreted in two way: in one way, the AGPL doesn't offer any protections over the GPL (so it's useless), and in the other way, every user of the software is using a "modified version" and thus required to offer it to any downstream users they provide access to the app to.
My understanding is that AGPL solves a real problem, people modifying GPL software and using loopholes to not give the modifications back to the community, is there a better license that fixes same problem and offers the maximum rights to the users (not maximum power to the developers)
If this argument is based on users not modifying the code themselves, then you could use this loophole:
* I make changes to an AGPL app and distribute it to you
* You take my version verbatim and run it as a SaaS. You do not have to provide the source, as you yourself didn't modify it.
If this is the case, then the AGPL is meaningless, and equivalent to the GPL.
Alternatively, the "modified version" property persists across distribution. In this case, any time a third party contributes code upstream (without copyright assignment), they would be making upstream itself become a "modified version" in perpetuity. There is no concept of "upstream" in the license itself to provide an out here.
If this is the case, all users of the software are required to disclose that fact to their network users and provide source.
So pick your poison. Either the AGPL is broken and equivalent to the GPL, or it actually requires all users to follow the requirements of that section, regardless of whether they themselves have modified the code.
The real answer here is that the AGPL is a horribly vague license, the SaaS viral provision is extremely poorly written, nobody knows what it'll mean when interpreted by a judge, and you just should never use it. It's a bad license. A bad EULA.
>License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
Logically you would be liable for providing a copy of the software running to your users and he or she would be liable to provide source to you. Merely placing more links in the chain wouldn't abrogate someone either you or they from sharing their modifications.
Not saying that those licences are perfect an there is definitely grey areas, but what you are stating is not true.
The "loophole" in the GPL is that you can modify the software, then only provide access to it, not a copy of it, and the users do not need to receive the modified software, because the GPL is a copyright license and has no bearing on what you can and cannot do as long as you don't copy the software itself.
(Whether this is a "loophole" or a desirable property is very much open to individual opinion)
What the AGPL does is say "Aha! If you modify the software and make it remotely available to users, then you must share your changes with them anyway!". And thus the loophole now becomes: modify the software, give it to someone (but nobody else), and then they can provide access to it as a service, without distributing the software itself, because they didn't modify it so the clause doesn't apply to them.
But maybe your interpretation (of the very vague clause 13 of the AGPL) is that the fact that the software was modified "sticks" even after you give it to someone else. In that case, as soon as anyone contributes changes upstream, then upstream becomes a "modified" version and all users of the software are now required to offer source code to anyone they provide access to it to, regardless of whether they themselves have modified it.
So you get to decide: either the AGPL can be trivially bypassed, or it actually requires all users of the software (in normal open source contribution models) to prominently advertise that to anyone they offer remote access to, modified or not. What's your interpretation? What will a judge's be? Neither of the two are what was intended, anyway.
You could also spend nothing and adhere to the strictest letter and spirit of the law instead of trying to get away with something.
If it's the principle of the matter that concerns you, then fine. But if you're concerned by the possibility of actual consequences, then your concern is misplaced.
You could argue the exact same way about the exact thing the AGPL was created against: "Let's be real, nobody is going to SWAT you for not telling your SaaS users about software licenses for things you use on your server..." I mean, who'll know, right?
Most end users don't modify their software after all.
The sole and only wrinkle is that a requirement to share your code may in some instances keep you from adding some secret sauce to the software, using it to derive profit, and not sharing it with the party that created 99% of the value by providing you the software in the first place. Which seems to be literally complaining that it works as intended.
If we accept the premise of copyright and licensing software in the first place I'm not sure where you derive the justification for complaining that they are merely interested in giving you some rights to their efforts and not others. After all they could give you none. Regarding existing free software you already can't take GPL software and make it part of your AGPL software. The kind of software that can be incorporated in AGPL software is software that is allowed by license to be incorporated with software that adds additional restrictions like BSD licensed software.
Many would term that "more free" but would somehow manage to differentiate between taking "more free" software and using it to build proprietary software that gives downstream no privileges and taking "more free" software and using it to build software with restrictions that gives some privileges and somehow find the latter wanting.