> […] and no one is going to use it […] in anything resembling a commercial product.
Ignoring the fact that this is demonstrably false, why would it be a problem if it was actually true?
There is nothing to stop a commercial interest writing their own, or licensing something from elsewhere. Depending on the contribution structure for this project (caveat: I've not looked into this at all) it may even be possible to license this project for non-GPL-compliant use. Or, you know, release the resulting project under the GPL.
The GPL is less restrictive than most commercial licensing, so judging it as restrictive because it can be difficult to justify in some (many?) commercial contexts is somewhat hypercritical IMO. Commercial licences can be just as "viral" and depending on the owner inadvertent infection (by using some code without properly verifying is origin & license first) can be more fatal to a project.
What commercial products are using Supercollider, since you mention this is demonstrably wrong? I'm honestly curious to know about them to read and learn about them.
You suggest that this is because of the GPL. That GPL covered code is used in many commercial products demonstrates that to be false.
You refrained from answering the question: if it was true, why would it matter?
Supplementary questions: If I release some software covered by, for instance, AGPLv3, why would it be a problem for me that commercial projects wouldn't use it? Why would it necessarily be a problem for my code's users?
We are talking about Csound and Supercollider here. I didn't make any general statement about GPL or licensing, nor would I like to. The entire point is if one wants to do something else with these programmatic audio systems besides just use them as they are to make music, which would almost surely include bundling the software into or distributing with an application, the projects that have more permissive licensing are more attractive for that purpose. And this particularly affects systems like game consoles or other such hardware like synthesizers.
Please just read my other comments and quit arguing about licensing to me. I am much more interested in just hearing about the features and applications of Csound and others.
Csound and Pure Data are more attractive, to me but likely others, because I can freely bundle them and apply them as I please without tiptoeing around a license, not to mention they have their own pros as far as sound generation goes. Supercollider was presented as an alternative to Csound, but I simply pointed out that if you care about embedding the system into something else, Csound is more friendly to that, as is Pure Data.
If you don't want to discuss something, may refrain from bringing it up?
If it isn't a relevant point when discussion these specific products then your mentioning of it in criticism of one of them seems [short pause to think of a more generous word than the first one that sprang to mind…] odd.
It's been discussed, people are bringing up irrelevant examples and generalizing what I said out of context, including you who quoted my comment by removing the context, and it's a fact that Csound has a more permissive license.
Comments
> > GPL.
> […] and no one is going to use it […] in anything resembling a commercial product.
Ignoring the fact that this is demonstrably false, why would it be a problem if it was actually true?
There is nothing to stop a commercial interest writing their own, or licensing something from elsewhere. Depending on the contribution structure for this project (caveat: I've not looked into this at all) it may even be possible to license this project for non-GPL-compliant use. Or, you know, release the resulting project under the GPL.
The GPL is less restrictive than most commercial licensing, so judging it as restrictive because it can be difficult to justify in some (many?) commercial contexts is somewhat hypercritical IMO. Commercial licences can be just as "viral" and depending on the owner inadvertent infection (by using some code without properly verifying is origin & license first) can be more fatal to a project.
What commercial products are using Supercollider, since you mention this is demonstrably wrong? I'm honestly curious to know about them to read and learn about them.
You suggest that this is because of the GPL. That GPL covered code is used in many commercial products demonstrates that to be false.
You refrained from answering the question: if it was true, why would it matter?
Supplementary questions: If I release some software covered by, for instance, AGPLv3, why would it be a problem for me that commercial projects wouldn't use it? Why would it necessarily be a problem for my code's users?
We are talking about Csound and Supercollider here. I didn't make any general statement about GPL or licensing, nor would I like to. The entire point is if one wants to do something else with these programmatic audio systems besides just use them as they are to make music, which would almost surely include bundling the software into or distributing with an application, the projects that have more permissive licensing are more attractive for that purpose. And this particularly affects systems like game consoles or other such hardware like synthesizers.
Please just read my other comments and quit arguing about licensing to me. I am much more interested in just hearing about the features and applications of Csound and others.
Csound and Pure Data are more attractive, to me but likely others, because I can freely bundle them and apply them as I please without tiptoeing around a license, not to mention they have their own pros as far as sound generation goes. Supercollider was presented as an alternative to Csound, but I simply pointed out that if you care about embedding the system into something else, Csound is more friendly to that, as is Pure Data.
> quit arguing about licensing to me
If you don't want to discuss something, may refrain from bringing it up?
If it isn't a relevant point when discussion these specific products then your mentioning of it in criticism of one of them seems [short pause to think of a more generous word than the first one that sprang to mind…] odd.
It's been discussed, people are bringing up irrelevant examples and generalizing what I said out of context, including you who quoted my comment by removing the context, and it's a fact that Csound has a more permissive license.
Many artworks and installations, which I would count as "commercial instances".