Helpful ReplyOpen Source

Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
SimpleManZ
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 157
  • Joined: 2014/10/21 00:07:34
  • Status: offline
2017/12/09 20:24:02 (permalink)

Open Source

For those who desire Sonar OPEN SOURCE.
I thought of wondering about Cakewalk's Project 5.
 
Just to let you know. I do not support Sonar being made open source. I contend much of Cakewalk's failure is marketing and hopefully a new marketing strategy is still a ripe opportunity to revive this product. 
 
So how about making Project 5 the target for OPEN Sorcery.
#1
List Solutions Only

2 Replies Related Threads
    slartabartfast
    Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5289
    • Joined: 2005/10/30 01:38:34
    • Status: offline
    Re: Open Source 2017/12/09 20:33:12 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby dubdisciple 2017/12/09 22:38:12
    Open source would imply that the code would be released, and is not the same as making the application free or identifying it as abandonware. That might facilitate programmers revising the code to make it compatible with OS changes etc., but it would require a licensing change as well. Arguably the licensing provisions that prevent alteration of software serve to protect the intellectual property they represent. Weakening that protection would potentially result in claims by Gibson creditors that an asset the creditors might receive in a bankruptcy had been devalued in anticipation of such an action. Perhaps it might even be interpreted as a fraudulent conveyance. I doubt anyone who has authority to do what you are suggesting would see any advantage to doing so. 
    #2
    dubdisciple
    Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 5849
    • Joined: 2008/01/29 00:31:46
    • Location: Seattle, Wa
    • Status: offline
    Re: Open Source 2017/12/09 22:38:53 (permalink)
    slartabartfast
    Open source would imply that the code would be released, and is not the same as making the application free or identifying it as abandonware. That might facilitate programmers revising the code to make it compatible with OS changes etc., but it would require a licensing change as well. Arguably the licensing provisions that prevent alteration of software serve to protect the intellectual property they represent. Weakening that protection would potentially result in claims by Gibson creditors that an asset the creditors might receive in a bankruptcy had been devalued in anticipation of such an action. Perhaps it might even be interpreted as a fraudulent conveyance. I doubt anyone who has authority to do what you are suggesting would see any advantage to doing so. 


    agreed.  Can't see the win for Gibson but see plenty of losses going that route.
    #3
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1