Looks to me like Audacity. http://audacity.sf.net Yep, it is.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. ---Occam
-----Original Message----- From: Kinder, Stephen - Kansas City, MO Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:07 PM To: Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO Subject:
Brian, Please look at: http://cgi.ebay.com/CONVERT-LPS-TAPES-TO-DIGITAL-MUSIC-CD-PLAY-ON-DVD-PC S_W0QQitemZ7344086215QQcategoryZ41786QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
This looks good to me. What do you think?
We should ask if they are distributing the source as well.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq?s=general&i=ebay
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Looks to me like Audacity. http://audacity.sf.net Yep, it is.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. ---Occam
-----Original Message----- From: Kinder, Stephen - Kansas City, MO Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:07 PM To: Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO Subject:
Brian, Please look at: http://cgi.ebay.com/CONVERT-LPS-TAPES-TO-DIGITAL-MUSIC-CD-PLAY-ON-DVD-PC S_W0QQitemZ7344086215QQcategoryZ41786QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
This looks good to me. What do you think? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On 8/17/05, D. Hageman [email protected] wrote:
We should ask if they are distributing the source as well.
people repackaging and selling audacity is addressed in the audacity FAQ.
You mean like the link I sent along with my comment? ;-)
I am serious about asking about the availability of the source code. It would also be good to ask if the money entitles you to any "support".
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, David Nicol wrote:
On 8/17/05, D. Hageman [email protected] wrote:
We should ask if they are distributing the source as well.
people repackaging and selling audacity is addressed in the audacity FAQ.
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 12:21, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Looks to me like Audacity. http://audacity.sf.net Yep, it is.
Wow. That's hilarious. I wish I had thought of it. :) With enough advertising capitol, you could start a "software" company that distributes OSS software to retails stores that's been rebranded under your company's name.... as long as you left the copyrights and license intact. You could even yank the price up if you included printed manuals. Even trademark law couldn't stop you because you aren't using anyone's trademark.
On 8/17/05, Jason Clinton [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 12:21, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO wrote:
Looks to me like Audacity. http://audacity.sf.net Yep, it is.
Wow. That's hilarious. I wish I had thought of it. :) With enough advertising capitol, you could start a "software" company that distributes OSS software to retails stores that's been rebranded under your company's name.... as long as you left the copyrights and license intact. You could even yank the price up if you included printed manuals. Even trademark law couldn't stop you because you aren't using anyone's trademark.
you mean, like Red Hat and Novell do?
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 14:26, David Nicol wrote:
you mean, like Red Hat and Novell do?
RedHat and Novell don't sell rebranded OSS apps for the Windows platform. The end-user software market for Windows is different from Linux in that there are plenty of suckers out there willing to shell out some $$ for pieces-of-software-at-a-time.
In the highly speculative scenario I proposed, one would be getting insane amounts of markup off each individual package -- selling them all separately in the same way that proprietary apps for Windows are sold. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would never know they could have gotten it for free.
However, the ethical measure of such an enterprise is less certain...
It isn't even that. RedHat and Novell sell:
1) Pre-compiled software with bugfixes and feature enhancements. 2) Support for issues you might encounter while using their software.
It is like having the choice to get a car for free, but the problem is that it is unassembled. You can assemble it yourself, but you realize that you aren't that good of a mechanic and your wife will make fun of you for the rest of your life if you get it wrong. So instead you go to Company X that will sell you already assembled cars that have been tested and guaranteed to work. Company X also provides support if and when the car starts to not working correctly. Company X makes no claims that their cars aren't the same ones you can get for free unassembled, but they might mention they hung a pine air freshner from the mirror.
The difference with some of these companies on e-bay is that they are re-branding and selling it as if it was their own product without providing the source or giving recognition to the people that really deserve it.
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jason Clinton wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 14:26, David Nicol wrote:
you mean, like Red Hat and Novell do?
RedHat and Novell don't sell rebranded OSS apps for the Windows platform. The end-user software market for Windows is different from Linux in that there are plenty of suckers out there willing to shell out some $$ for pieces-of-software-at-a-time.
In the highly speculative scenario I proposed, one would be getting insane amounts of markup off each individual package -- selling them all separately in the same way that proprietary apps for Windows are sold. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would never know they could have gotten it for free.
However, the ethical measure of such an enterprise is less certain...
--- Jason Clinton wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 14:26, David Nicol wrote:
you mean, like Red Hat and Novell do?
RedHat and Novell don't sell rebranded OSS apps for the Windows platform. The end-user software market for Windows is different from Linux in that there are plenty of suckers out there willing to shell out some $$ for pieces-of-software-at-a-time.
In the highly speculative scenario I proposed, one would be getting insane amounts of markup off each individual package -- selling them all separately in the same way that proprietary apps for Windows are sold. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would never know they could have gotten it for free.
Oh!!! You mean like Lindo... err... Linspire!
;')
On that thread, I wouldn't be opposed to paying per piece of software (for some things). I'd really like to have a good desktop publisher and graphics program on Linux that also has a good book on how to make the most of it. I know there are: OOo, Scribus, Sketch and Gimp, but they are all lacking a bit in usability. Well not sure about Sketch (haven't used it much yet). On the DTP I have this huge (20,000+) library of clipart from various places, but it needs some serious tool for organizing the them so I can find what I want.
Brian JD
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thursday 18 August 2005 14:02, Jack wrote:
--- Jason Clinton wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2005 14:26, David Nicol wrote:
you mean, like Red Hat and Novell do?
RedHat and Novell don't sell rebranded OSS apps for the Windows platform. The end-user software market for Windows is different from Linux in that there are plenty of suckers out there willing to shell out some $$ for pieces-of-software-at-a-time.
Oh!!! You mean like Lindo... err... Linspire!
Actually, Linspire has funded some really cool stuff-- see PhoneGaim for example ;)
-
D. Hageman -
David Nicol -
Jack -
Jason Clinton -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Luke-Jr