I sort of doubt that it is 'restricted' to Windows. More that as a single person developer, that's all he's done. I can't imagine he'd be upset if someone ported it to Mac or Linux. I wrote a patch editor for my Digitech RP2000 and made it open source, but there's no Mac or Linux version. Only because I have zero clue (and no resources) how to go about writing for those platforms.
Seems like a cool idea, though from my perspective, I'd rather get a laptop and an FCB1010 and AudioMulch. A bit more cash... anywho... nifty idea.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Dennis Moser <email@example.com>
You're absolutely correct: "open source" doesn't mean "cross-platform" ... but the most successful open-source projects understood that GETTING that source in front of as many sets of eyeballs as possible also meant making it operable under as many different toolkits on as many different platforms as possible.
Restricting it to a SINGLE proprietary OS by the toolkit needed to work on it is not exactly embracing the spirit of open source, even if there are more people running Windows.
But this is getting way off topic ...
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sean Echevarria <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Open source doesn't mean cross-platform...
At 2008.08.15 07:31 AM, Dennis Moser wrote:
But to call it "open source" is a little disingenuous ... no Linux or Mac support for the development tools?