View Single Post
Old 12-26-2018, 02:09 PM   #54
azslow3
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 783
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rednroll View Post
That was my assumption and what the irony of my question was pointing towards. To call something Open Source without knowing the licensing restrictions behind it is really misleading. Thus my thinking is that if it were truly open source with a LGNL, GNU, or even MIT license behind it, it seems someone would have developed and released code by now for it which addressed the initial concept problems currently associated with ASIO such as the single device limitation.

I will need someone to point me to the location of the ASIO source code along with the available associated licenses before I start to believe it is open source in the truest sense of the definition.
Open source is one thing. The license is another. Note that GNU GPL v3 is extreme restrictive license... For example you can not use any source with such license together with many other open source licenses (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html) nor with ANY non open source licenses.

And sure, everything you do you provide for free... If not, why you think everything done by programmers should be "free"?

Also note that combining different interfaces in practice is rarely useful. In such case they should be externally synchronized and aggregation introduce unavoidable latency in case there is any inter-operations between IN/OUTs from different devices. When people do not care about these 2 restrictions and ready to accept software sample rate matching, there is no need for ASIO.

ASIO and VST sources/licenses: https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/developers.html
azslow3 is offline   Reply With Quote