I remember he used the pirated version of SoundForge, cracked by Radium if I am not mistaken. You can find Radium’s watermark embedded in the wave file
Brian didnt use a PC though, so its possible it was someone downstream that used the cracked soundforge. That version of SoundForge was what I used in college very heavily. I should look at my old sample folder and see how many have the watermark...
IIRC Eno was really into the Yamaha DX7 FM synthesizer around the time he did the Windows 95 sound, it was almost certainly created using that hardware and then later someone mastered it to a wav file (perhaps using a pirated copy of soundforge).
For what it's worth, the DX7 isn't capable of producing most of the sounds heard in the Windows 95 sound. If it was used at all, it would be one out of several synthesizers.
Is your knowledge of Eno's workflow such that you can make this accusation with confidence? I see the demand for the work-product as such that I'm not sure if his output was a file, it may well have been 3.5 seconds of Ampex tape or some other medium.
> collect the evidence and write a thorough article about it and post it here or on Reddit and other places. If you articulate your ideas properly and if you have a point I bet you will receive traction and response from YC people.
Indeed. To use a snap to install something that is pretty much integral to the Gnome desktop and has no dependency on anything other than Gnome, this is ridiculous.
Snaps are useful for packaging dependencies that aren't (AND CAN'T in a timely fashion) be provided by the distro.
> Instead of buying the hardware from me, they simply built their own devices. And because the software has a permissive open-source license, they were free to use it in their company without paying me anything.
> This is an extremely common problem in open-source. An open license helps people discover your product and encourages them to use it, but it also allows big corporations to profit from your work while offering nothing in return.
in the same way you do not contribute back to https://pikvm.org but you make profit from it
> It is my code… sort of. The freelancers who work on TinyPilot sign a contract saying that I own the intellectual property of code they contribute, but I also have accepted a handful of contributions from volunteer developers. My understanding is that developers who contributed free code technically co-own the copyright to TinyPilot’s code with me.
> I released TinyPilot under the MIT license because it gives me flexibility as well. I think I can “fork” the code myself into a different license and just say that it also uses MIT-licensed code, but I’m not totally sure how that works.
again, not true. Your code is based on someone else code, https://pikvm.org and you are making profit from it without contributing.
>Your code is based on someone else code, https://pikvm.org and you are making profit from it without contributing.
TinyPilot is not based on PiKVM.
I started the project before I was aware of PiKVM, and the PiKVM author invited me to check out his project.[0] That led me to uStreamer, the video streaming tool that PiKVM published. I use uStreamer under the GPL and keep all the code in a separate repo. That's the only component that TinyPilot and PiKVM share.
>in the same way you do not contribute back to https://pikvm.org but you make profit from it
I do contribute to uStreamer. I actively maintain the Ansible role[1], and I've also contributed financially.[2] I'm in regularly contact with Maxim about how we can work together.
If Maxim is unhappy with our arrangement, I'm happy to hear from him. PiKVM seems to have an odd contingent of fans who have taken it upon themselves to pop up whenever people are discussing TinyPilot to claim that I'm exploiting Maxim.
2. > PiKVM seems to have an odd contingent of fans who have taken it upon themselves to pop up whenever people are discussing TinyPilot to claim that I'm exploiting Maxim.
no, people speak-up when they see injustice, thank you for the free insult.
I don't know the specifics of how TinyPilot is supposedly based on Pi-KVM, but seeing how the all Pi-KVM repositories seem to be licensed under GPL 3.0[^1] even distributing his code under MIT seems potentially legally problematic. See the "same license" clause of the GPL 3.0 for derivative projects and projects even just using GPL 3.0 code.
This is of course only relevant if the above comment is correct and TinyPilot actually derives from and/or uses code from GPL 3.0 licensed parts of the Pi-KVM project. I do not know if this is the case.
humm… I wonder why is that..