Thought I'd say, I always thought it was peculiar that people used this proprietary Steinberg technology for so long. Glad some folks got together - like they did with MIDI - and opened it up to everyone.
Just came accross a video about CLAP. Excellent news indeed !
One thing though with being open source is that there will be more versions of the format, which is both a good thing in general and a curse for a format. Formats usually should not change too much as that can bring incompatibilities.
But given the number of companies backing it, I think this aspect will be taken seriously.
free for use, but what about selling products under CLAP extension\format\brand?
MIT license uses the terms "sell" and "use" that are also used in defining the rights of a patent holder, depending on each country IP (intellectual property) laws.
Have no idea. .clap as a specification might be open source and also the plugins created for\with it. MIT licenses was drafted before the patentability of software was generally recognized under US law (other countries as well).
So, am I allowed to clone\mod a clone of a clone of a commercial\paid CLAP plugin and sell it as "better one" or "brand new"?
After all, devs. might want to make money out of it. Certainly, Donation button is always an option, but...
I've read your posts and they are all utterly stupid. Your conversation is plain uninteresting. Please learn about open source practices before opening your mouth.
I've read your posts and they are all utterly stupid. Your conversation is plain uninteresting. Please learn about open source practices before opening your mouth.
If you look under their user name you'll see they are banned now.
One thing though with being open source is that there will be more versions of the format, which is both a good thing in general and a curse for a format. Formats usually should not change too much as that can bring incompatibilities.
Chances for that are very slim actually - why would a single company break off the mainline, instead of contribute to it?
Chances for that are very slim actually - why would a single company break off the mainline, instead of contribute to it?
Monome are a good example of this, I think - https://monome.org/. They've doggedly stuck to one mainline code, and allow forks as it is open source but no one really bothers that much because compatibility is king in the main release. Bugs get squashed real quick.
They levelled their playing field and the code gets updated regularly but not in pursuit of 'upgrades' of software thats too heavy for the older hardware.
Everything just works. No inbuilt obsolescence allowed. Its a fantastic forum too, proper community thing https://llllllll.co/
One thing though with being open source is that there will be more versions of the format, which is both a good thing in general and a curse for a format.
Yep. You're making a very good point.
Avid’s OMF initiative was a perfect example.
Last edited by Bob Blacksheep; 07-07-2022 at 09:49 AM.
why would a single company break off the mainline, instead of contribute to it?
It’s more of a “fork-in-the road” thing than it is a matter of “defecting”. Two (or more) developers will try to add new features, or to solve existing problems, and will come up with two perfectly good (but incompatible) ‘solutions’.
Another problem is the Dunning–Kruger effect. Inexperienced developers will over-estimate their expertise and experience, and experienced developers will over-estimate the expertise and experience of other developers.
Linear Mode
