Hacker News Reader

Comment by whizzter | Hacker News Reader

It looks like an interesting approach, gonna take a deeper peek at it.

Any particular reason for the player part to be LGPL rather than something more permissive? Don't see the player portions being badly appropriated or fork-extended commercially w/o the main tool that definetly should remain GPL:ed. (I'm still active in the demoscene doing 64k's where exe-compression usually works with single exe's)

View on HN

At least you don't have to write your own DOS extenders nowadays :)

Haha, spilling my old dirty secrets eh ;D

If it was up to me it'd actually be at least GPLv3 and likely AGPL haha but many were involved in licensing choices and this is where the common ground landed.

And the player is what actually contains most of the interesting algorithmic "meat" ; a company could build a custom DAW on top of it without much trouble for instance.

Hmm, maybe you're right. I was mostly considering the parts needed for me (linear-replay) but I guess when you have OSC,Midi and all other kinds of integrations there's a lot more integration code weight.

Though from experience with my own tools, I suspect that in the end the UI code for the tool will outweight most other parts in the end.

Yes, there's definitely more UI code (roughly 20% of the total is engine code). But it's also a much, much easier code to write than the engine code which has to be threadsafe, has to perform no allocations as far as is possible, comes with various graph algorithms, etc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com