[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

  • From: "Tom White" <twhite@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 15:34:07 -0800

> So no commercial app uses any "standard" or other tech unless a
> standards body is involved?  Baloney.  The point of this is to get
> the best possible API which solves the requirements we have 
> gathered.  Being under the MMA gives us legitimacy and encourages
> those who might dismiss us off-hand to not do so.
> 
> I don't mean to be dismissive, I really DO see the usefulness of the
> MMA, but we need to be honest about being open. We're either open or
> under the MMA, but not both.
> 
> That said, we can gerrymander it so that we kindof do both.   As
> proposed the API can be owned by the MMA, and the SDK can be open.
> The development of the SDK in parallel with the API will necessarily
> cause the API to evolve somewhat openly.
> 
> So I'm not against it, but it is a matter of positioning, and to some
> degree, spin.

Okay, consider this...

The way it works with MIDI is anyone can use the technology any way
they like, but they can only call it MIDI if it happens to follow an
MMA specification. MMA owns the specification and the process for
contributing to the specification. It so happens that MMA does not
currently have a good way to accept proposals for MIDI from outside,
but that is mostly because it really has not been necessary for MIDI.

Perhaps taking proposals from outside of MMA will be necessary for
GMPI, but MMA members could still manage the process and make the
final decision about what goes into the spec. To be enforceable, MMA
would need to own the spec. But that would neither prevent people
from contributing to GMPI, nor prevent people from using GMPI
(including using it in some other manner, as long as they did not
try to call it GMPI). I think it would be important to have the
same situation with the reference code: people could be free to use
it and change it, but changes which get implemented as "GMPI" must be
approved by MMA (and if not, then just don't call the result GMPI).

This might be a good way to assure that GMPI has longevity and that
there is only one definition of GMPI, both of which are going to be
important to many commercial developers. 

But this is just my thought.. I don't speak for MMA at the moment <g>.

- Tom White, MMA

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2005