Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: When will TAK go open source? (Read 56536 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #25 –
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The license of the source code is not the issue at stake here; the availability of encoder/decoder binaries on alternate operating systems is.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #26 –
I am still not sure why should TAK go Open Source. There is absolutely no reason for this. Does it work? Yes it does. The only issue I see is linux/mac version, which is, as I see it, nonexistent.
But there are other codecs available in that world, so I don't see it as such a big deal. So, where exactly is the problem?
Error 404; signature server not available.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: hlloyge on
But there are other codecs available in that world, so I don't see it as such a big deal. So, where exactly is the problem?

No problem. The world will keep spinning, indeed. Would you say the same if TAK was Mac-only though?

It's not just about Linux and Mac OS X versions, it's about support on any software and hardware platform that Thomas does't provide. If TAK were Free Software, or at least open source with reasonable licensing, third-parties would have the opportunity to add such support themselves. It doesn't always happen (Ogg Vorbis' acceleration patches have long stayed Windows-only), but what matters is the opportunity. I can't bitch about FlaCUDA being restricted to Windows right now, I can only hope Gregory (or yet another third-party) will port it over to my platform of choice (linux). Given the availability of CUDA under linux and FLAC's popularity, I wouldn't be surprised if someone jumped on the occasion once they learn about FlaCUDA's mere existence.

By keeping TAK closed source, Thomas keeps the door closed to a whole bunch of talented and motivated programmers who would gladly port his codec and/or improve on it. Guys like Gregory Chudov (FlaCUDA), Justin Ruggles (Flake), GeorgeFP (fpFLAC), Aoyumi (Vorbis), Jason Jordan (shnutils), others I didn't catch the name of (Vorbis, Lancer) and many others I can't think of right now.

Edit: and not least, Josh Coalson (FLAC). I'd mention other authors like David Bryant (WavPack), though I don't know if they'd benefit from TAK, since I don't recall statements to that effect from them. Their case is also a bit different since they're the authors of their own codec.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Unfortunately the validity of thoses statements creates kind of a deadlock situation for TAK: If it wants to attract considerably more users, it has to go open source, but at the same time it does, it's advanced technology can be copied and it will be only a matter of time, until TAK is dead...
     

You are a pessimist.  You still can open the decoder only for now (maybe without a no-reconstruction-of-the-compressor-restriction known from UNRAR ???), you can publish more detailed specs, and you also can contact Xiph if they would adopt it as they did with FLAC - more people would be available to defend if against possible pirates. TAK has been around here for 4 years now, so hardly anyone can steal it and say "it's my work"
/\/\/\/\/\/\

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: skamp on
No problem. The world will keep spinning, indeed. Would you say the same if TAK was Mac-only though?


Well, yeah. I tried it a few times, and continued to work with FLAC and APE. And a lot of software is Mac-only, and I find the alternatives. As well as for some linux software.

Quote
It's not just about Linux and Mac OS X versions, it's about support on any software and hardware platform that Thomas does't provide. If TAK were Free Software, or at least open source with reasonable licensing, third-parties would have the opportunity to add such support themselves. It doesn't always happen (Ogg Vorbis' acceleration patches have long stayed Windows-only), but what matters is the opportunity. I can't bitch about FlaCUDA being restricted to Windows right now, I can only hope Gregory (or yet another third-party) will port it over to my platform of choice (linux). Given the availability of CUDA under linux and FLAC's popularity, I wouldn't be surprised if someone jumped on the occasion once they learn about FlaCUDA's mere existence.


I don't see this "free software" as something that should be applied to all software. I use linux sometimes at home, and much more at work, I used it for a long time as desktop OS - and I understand the willingness of linux users to have everything for free - and for the most of the time, the software is free. But!
Thomas decides to keep the TAK format for himself. So what? You can do two things in this case, first one is to ask him politely to make linux and os x binaries, if he can and have knowledge of doing that, or continue to use some other lossless format. Why attacking him, and forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do? I am sorry you can't use TAK except from within wine on linux, but that is your choice, not his. Do you really think he should do something he doesn't like because you choose to use OS he doesn't support? Linux is all about choice, so you have the choice of some other software to use.

Quote
By keeping TAK closed source, Thomas keeps the door closed to a whole bunch of talented and motivated programmers who would gladly port his codec and/or improve on it. Guys like Gregory Chudov (FlaCUDA), Justin Ruggles (Flake), GeorgeFP (fpFLAC), Aoyumi (Vorbis), Jason Jordan (shnutils), others I didn't catch the name of (Vorbis, Lancer) and many others I can't think of right now.


So? I see him as a talented coder/programmer. His choice is to continue to work on codec for himself. You are linux user, you see what happened to kernel just because everyone can contribute  all that is seen by me, as a bystander, is attack on his decision not to release the codec source code. Please, respect his wishes. Just because people on this board helped him test the codec it doesn't means we have the right to choose what will become with that codec. It's as simple as that.

And I am sorry if that offends someone, but that is the way I see things.
Error 404; signature server not available.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #30 –
Tom, there seem to be a great many positive and pragmatic contributions in this thread:

1. OPEN SOURCE DECODER ONLY

Quote from: _m²_ on
Quote from: carpman on
Does open-sourcing a decoder ultimately give away the encoder too? I presume it does.

Nope. RAR is an example. It has open source decoder with licence clearly stating that it can't be used to reverse the encoder.


Quote from: DOS386 on
You still can open the decoder only for now (maybe without a no-reconstruction-of-the-compressor-restriction known from UNRAR ???), you can publish more detailed specs, and you also can contact Xiph if they would adopt it as they did with FLAC ....


Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Does this apply to the decoder too?  Having TAK in ffmpeg eventually would be very handy, and would allow for portable/embedded support.


2. MULTI-PLATFORM BINARIES

Quote from: ManekiNeko on
If the Windows binaries (encoder, decoder, plugins) were available natively on all 3 platforms, it's a no brainer, I would switch. Would I care if it was open source? Not really.


3. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
You can have an open "standard" without going open source on your implementation.
You can have a patent, and still open the source.
You can do something with the encoder, and something else with the decoder.
Rather than worrying about someone taking over your project, you can take over someone else's (e.g. branch FLAC).
There are lots of options open to you.


----------------

Tom, I have 2 questions regarding TAK:

1) Is there a problem with (or good reason for not) open sourcing (only) the decoder?
2) Hypothetically if the TAK decoder was open source, and a hardware (e.g. DVD Player) manufacturer was deciding to impliment FLAC and/or TAK compatibility, are there any additional obstacles that would make TAK less attractive to them than FLAC, specifically in regard to the licence and the code?

C.
PC = TAK + LossyWAV  ::  Portable = Opus (130)

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: hlloyge on
I don't see this "free software" as something that should be applied to all software. […] I understand the willingness of linux users to have everything for free […]

You sound confused. Free Software is capitalized for a reason. It doesn't stand for free as in beer, but free as in speech. Free to modify and distribute. Americans sometimes borrow the french libre to avoid such confusion.

Quote from: hlloyge on
ask him politely

[citation needed] Was I ever impolite with him?

Quote from: hlloyge on
to make linux and os x binaries, if he can and have knowledge of doing that

It's not that he can't or refuses to do that; by his own admission, he's overworked as it is. That's what's most frustrating: he won't give someone else the chance to take on that task in parallel to his own work.

Quote from: hlloyge on
Why attacking him, and forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do?

Who's attacked him? Who's forcing him to do anything? Certainly not me. That's a groundless accusation.

Quote from: hlloyge on
I am sorry you can't use TAK except from within wine on linux, but that is your choice, not his.

Sure. The difference is, the platform I use is indeed about choice, while Thomas' position is about restricting everyone to use his software as he sees fit. Yes, it's his right, just don't ask me to agree with it.

Quote from: hlloyge on
Do you really think he should do something he doesn't like because you choose to use OS he doesn't support?

I think he doesn't want to open the source for the wrong reasons. At this point we'll have to agree to disagree though.

Quote from: hlloyge on
You are linux user, you see what happened to kernel just because everyone can contribute

I don't know what you're talking about, actually. The linux kernel keeps better and better with every release - improvements that I can actually see and measure.

Quote from: hlloyge on
all that is seen by me, as a bystander, is attack on his decision not to release the codec source code. Please, respect his wishes.

I doubt Thomas himself sees it as an attack. Also, I wouldn't be expressing myself on the topic - again - if he hadn't put it on the table - again.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #32 –
Several free software programs (= cost price zero) but not being open source have/had their success, for example Exact Audio Copy and foobar2000.

Everybody has to make for him/herself clear the REAL GOAL of doing something (thousands of reasons are possible). This can be a tough excersize as different feelings mixed with external factors are hard to prioritize. Once one takes a decision he/she knows the road to follow, and, there will be no change until a new decision is taken. Important: not taking a decision is in essence also a decision.

I can fully understand Thomas and can only hope that mental battles won't steal hours from improving his lifework. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #33 –
Quote
Several free software programs (= cost price zero) but not being open source have/had their success, for example Exact Audio Copy and foobar2000.


There is a difference between closed source programs (fb2k, iTunes, WMP) and closed formats (ALAC, WMA, TAK).

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote
Honestly, why should i put effort into an open source release, if this only dispatches TAK!?

No. This would be self-denial.

Currently the only valid option for me to reveal TAK's technology would be:

- Improve the codec until i am running out of new ideas.
- Then ask Josh, if he would like to put the TAK codec into FLAC and if there will be a proper reference to me.

What else can this mean as "No, TAK will not go open source"?



I think there is a 3rd option - a hybrid really.

FLAC, as you stated, cannot adapt and change as much as TAK. FLAC could not use all of the technology of TAK. TAK can live on, FLAC would incorporate some features, and TAK would be free to grow and evolve as you get new ideas.

You get the credit you deserve. TAK lives on. FLAC improves. Seems like the best for everyone!?

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #35 –
First: Surely i am following this thread, but there may be some delay before i reply, because i am busy preparing the V2.0 release.

I hope, the following will answer most new questions:

1) Couldn't you at least release the source code of the decoder?

No. Unfortunately the source of the decoder would already reveal most of the codec's technology. Most of it's compression power could then be achieved by adopting the code. Only my very fast encoding algorithms would be kept secret.

2) Does TAK's speed depend a lot on your specific implementation?

No. It's mostly based upon algorithms. For instance even a plain pascal implementation would encode -p1, which easily beats FLAC -8 compressionwise, several times faster than FLAC -8. And this although FLAC -8 is using assembler MMX optimizations.

3) Wouldn't going open source help to improve TAK's efficiency a lot?

No. Sorry, but if there are so many motivated developers waiting to improve lossless codecs, then why hasn't the very attractive FLAC project improved more efficiencywise? I can see many opportunities to improve FLAC's speed and some to improve it's compression efficiency without breaking the backwards compatibility.

Ok, there are flacuda and fpFLAC. Really nice work of the developers! But isn't it better to improve algorithms instead of applying brute force? Hey, let's save a bit of power. And how many users trust those implementations and will use them regulary to compress their possibly large file collections? I don't know...

4) Wouldn't going open source help to get some hardware implementations?

Maybe. But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? Both are open source (ok, a bit questionable in the case of Monkey's), but are there many hardware implementations? No. Lossless audio compression generally seems to be a bit exotic, therefore the developers of hardware players wil possibly implement FLAC, but anything else is usually too exotic, unlikely to attract enough users to justify additional development costs.

5) Do you intend to release Linux implementations of TAK?

Yes. But i have to learn a lot, before i can do this.

6) Do you hate open source?

No! It's great in many cases, but not always. What i don't like are crusaders, making fantastic claims and ignoring big parts of reality or experience. I would have liked to release an open source version of TAK, but unfortunately the current setting (bad english?) doesn't make it possible. My current preference is a later fusion with FLAC.



When will TAK go open source?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: TBeck on
4) Wouldn't going open source help to get some hardware implementations?

Maybe. But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? Both are open source (ok, a bit questionable in the case of Monkey's), but are there many hardware implementations? No. Lossless audio compression generally seems to be a bit exotic, therefore the developers of hardware players wil possibly implement FLAC, but anything else is usually too exotic, unlikely to attract enough users to justify additional development costs.


This is not a good argument for 2 reasons:

1)  APE has extremely high decode requirements that make it impossible to use on most embedded devices, and until very recently, there was no available embedded decoder.  Its simply not analogous. 

2)  APE actually does have ok hardware support given the massive limitations imposed by the format.  Some Cowon and Iriver players decode it, as well as rockbox.  If you want to use APE with a hardware device or a stereo, you absolutely can find hardware to do it.  Most other companies that are even open to FLAC simply do not ship hardware fast enough to decode APE (e.g. Sandisk). 

A better example would have been wavpack, which is efficient to decode but also not widely known like TAK.  It can be decoded on some Cowon players as well as Rockbox. 

FWIW I think this is an odd thing to worry about.  In the long run either TAK will fade into obscurity (ATRAC Lossless), or the format will be reverse engineered anyway like previous closed lossless formats (e.g. ALAC).  If you have some intention to cash in or exploit your edge, you should probably consider how exactly you will do this sooner rather then later.  Otherwise you may end up with the worst of both worlds (your ideas widely used by others and no one using TAK).

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
A better example would have been wavpack, which is efficient to decode but also not widely known like TAK.  It can be decoded on some Cowon players as well as Rockbox.

Maybe that's why i wrote "But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? " ?

Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
FWIW I think this is an odd thing to worry about.  In the long run either TAK will fade into obscurity (ATRAC Lossless), or the format will be reverse engineered anyway like previous closed lossless formats (e.g. ALAC).  If you have some intention to cash in or exploit your edge, you should probably consider how exactly you will do this sooner rather then later.  Otherwise you may end up with the worst of both worlds (your ideas widely used by others and no one using TAK).

If other open source lossless codecs could only be improved by reverse engineering and stealing the ideas of others, which light would this shed on the open source philosophy?

You may as well have missed this:

Quote
My current preference is a later fusion with FLAC.

This seems to be the best option for me (if i get proper credits) and the users.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: TBeck on
But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? Both are open source (ok, a bit questionable in the case of Monkey's), but are there many hardware implementations? No.

I don't know about "many", but incidentally, my Cowon S9 supports Monkey's Audio in addition to FLAC.

Quote from: TBeck on
5) Do you intend to release Linux implementations of TAK?

Yes. But i have to learn a lot, before i can do this.

Since the command-line encoder/decoder can already be used with wine, what's sorely missing is playback support. How are you going to provide that for the many music players out there, while keeping the source closed? It just won't work. You won't spend time to write a plugin for every music player, and no maintainer is ever going to accept a binary blob in their project anyway.

I wish you'd clearly state that there will be no linux support, ever. TAK would be officially a Windows-only codec, and it would put an end to all the drama.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: skamp on
Quote from: TBeck on
But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? Both are open source (ok, a bit questionable in the case of Monkey's), but are there many hardware implementations? No.

I don't know about "many", but incidentally, my Cowon S9 supports Monkey's Audio in addition to FLAC.

I know, that there are some hardware implementations. But i doubt, that's sufficient to spread a format.

Quote from: skamp on
Quote from: TBeck on
5) Do you intend to release Linux implementations of TAK?

Yes. But i have to learn a lot, before i can do this.

Since the command-line encoder/decoder can already be used with wine, what's sorely missing is playback support. How are you going to provide that for the many music players out there, while keeping the source closed? It just won't work. You won't spend time to write a plugin for every music player, and no maintainer is ever going to accept a binary blob in their project anyway.

I wish you'd clearly state that there will be no linux support, ever. TAK would be officially a Windows-only codec, and it would put an end to all the drama.

Aren't you a bit nitpicking? Would my statement only be honest if i added a list of possible player plugins and their exact release dates? Do you expect me to be a lot more precise than the vendors of paid software? Sorry, but this is still a hobby for me, and sometimes real life breaks in and changes anything.

Maybe i am a bit too open: Me saying that i deserve some criticism for my late deceision regarding an open source release seems to be an invitation for some people to slap me.

Yes, i am not a lawyer, and i am not adding a lot of pages of explainations and definitions to my posts, which possibly could make them really distinct. Hence you may always find something to complain about. Often another possibility would be to ask me.

I am wondering, how straight and never failing all those people are in their real lives, who keep on critizising me because of one (surely important) failure.

But i forgot, forums are also about fun and entertainment...

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Aren't you a bit nitpicking? Would my statement only be honest if i added a list of possible player plugins and their exact release dates? Do you expect me to be a lot more precise than the vendors of paid software?

Not at all. I'm trying to make a point. I think linux support without opening up the sources is not realistic.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: skamp on
Quote from: TBeck on
Aren't you a bit nitpicking? Would my statement only be honest if i added a list of possible player plugins and their exact release dates? Do you expect me to be a lot more precise than the vendors of paid software?

Not at all. I'm trying to make a point. I think linux support without opening up the sources is not realistic.

Yes, "you think". That's the point. I am making a statement and you expect me to add an elaboration of possible interpretations and implications.

If i was a politician, i would simply bring the self-responsible citizen into play.

But i am not. Therefore i can only say: My posts are mostly simply posts, not case studies.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
A better example would have been wavpack, which is efficient to decode but also not widely known like TAK.  It can be decoded on some Cowon players as well as Rockbox.

Maybe that's why i wrote "But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? " ?


I did misread that particular line but it doesn't change the correctness of my argument, nor support yours, but I am sorry I poorly phrased that sentence. 

Quote from: TBeck on
If other open source lossless codecs could only be improved by reverse engineering and stealing the ideas of others, which light would this shed on the open source philosophy?


Interesting that you jumped to complaining about open source, although I did not mention it 

Lots of closed formats copy the ideas of other closed formats too.  The idea that somehow not allowing people to look at the source keeps people from understanding what you are doing in the long run is not particularly sound.  Eventually all good ideas are copied or else obsoleted.

Quote from: TBeck on
Quote
My current preference is a later fusion with FLAC.

This seems to be the best option for me (if i get proper credits) and the users.


I didn't miss that, I just doubt people will be particularly receptive to amending the flac bitstream, so I don't think this will ever happen.  I wasn't going to be such a downer, but since you asked . . .

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: skamp on
Quote from: TBeck on
But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? Both are open source (ok, a bit questionable in the case of Monkey's), but are there many hardware implementations? No.

I don't know about "many", but incidentally, my Cowon S9 supports Monkey's Audio in addition to FLAC.

a subset of monkey's audio is supported by cowon and a bunch of chinese DAPs you can't get here (they're not too worried about patents) but not much else.  no hardware supports the whole format.  afaik wavpack is only in the cowon players.

thomas is right that going open source is not going to automatically get you into players.  wavpack has had slightly higher compression ratios and bsd licensed code for years.

Quote from: TBeck on
3) Wouldn't going open source help to improve TAK's efficiency a lot?

No. Sorry, but if there are so many motivated developers waiting to improve lossless codecs, then why hasn't the very attractive FLAC project improved more efficiencywise? I can see many opportunities to improve FLAC's speed and some to improve it's compression efficiency without breaking the backwards compatibility.

you could still do that. I don't know what kind of credit you're looking for but all flac project work is attributed.  that's why I advised the way I did in the yalac days, to contribute to flac.  you get more visibility contributing to a high profile project than trying to start a competing one from scratch.

honestly I didn't start flac to get credit and I would not feel right to advance the field slightly and then close it off.  I saw it more as a scientific pursuit, building on something open and keeping it open.

another misconception here is that ideas can be stolen.  they cannot, they're not like bars of gold.  no amount of 'imaginary property' laws can usurp natural law.  you either have to keep it secret (until someone else picks the same idea out of the ether), or set it free with no attachments.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
A better example would have been wavpack, which is efficient to decode but also not widely known like TAK.  It can be decoded on some Cowon players as well as Rockbox.

Maybe that's why i wrote "But what's about Monkeys' audio and especially WavPack? " ?


I did misread that particular line but it doesn't change the correctness of my argument, nor support yours, but I am sorry I poorly phrased that sentence. 
ked . . .

My argument was: An open source implementation on it's own isn't sufficient to spread a format and to automatically cause a significant amount of hardware implementations. That there are some implementations for Monkey's audio and WavPack doesn't contradict this, if FLAC has so many more. All are beeing open source, but only FLAC is so consequently beeing marketed, and this seems to make the difference.

Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: TBeck on
If other open source lossless codecs could only be improved by reverse engineering and stealing the ideas of others, which light would this shed on the open source philosophy?


Interesting that you jumped to complaining about open source, although I did not mention it 

Intersting: You wrote "or the format will be reverse engineered anyway like previous closed lossless formats (e.g. ALAC)". I only know of open source implementations of the reverse engineered ALAC, if you know better, please tell me.

And this again looks like nitpicking: Any possible facette of my statements seems to be the object of investigation of some hidden underlying motivations of mine. Please don't forget, that my english isn't very good. I could be a lot more precise in my native language.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: jcoalson on
you could still do that. I don't know what kind of credit you're looking for but all flac project work is attributed.  that's why I advised the way I did in the yalac days, to contribute to flac.  you get more visibility contributing to a high profile project than trying to start a competing one from scratch.

Well, i think i will contact you within the next days.

Quote from: jcoalson on
honestly I didn't start flac to get credit and I would not feel right to advance the field slightly and then close it off.  I saw it more as a scientific pursuit, building on something open and keeping it open.

Me too. Otherwises i wouldn't have worked on TAK for so many years (before arriving at hydrogen) only for my own fun and without talking about it.

Unfortunately some not so nice life events have changed this to some degree. But the details -while beeing important to really understand the course of the public TAK development and my attidude change- aren't appropriate  to be published.

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #46 –
As a software developer I know how you feel, Thomas. If I can give you some advice, discard any wishful thinking and weight the options.

If you keep TAK closed, will it really benefit you? Are you sure? If you don't think so, then you should probably make the mob happy. If you think it just might and you have a plan for how, then go ahead and keep it closed, though don't be so naive as to think people aren't gonna be angry or disappointed. We've been looking forward to TAK going open source for years and now you've gone and cancelled Christmas on us.

And the 'I just want credit' line doesn't ring true. There's no shortage of applause for open source developers. If you dream dollar bills, Tom, there's no need to hide it; we've all got some grudging respect for entrepreneurs.

My 10 cents, my 2 cents is free.
- Qest
 

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: TBeck on
Quote from: jcoalson on
you could still do that. I don't know what kind of credit you're looking for but all flac project work is attributed.  that's why I advised the way I did in the yalac days, to contribute to flac.  you get more visibility contributing to a high profile project than trying to start a competing one from scratch.

Well, i think i will contact you within the next days.

Imho is the best option    Newest Flac versions (e.g.): "Flac 1.5 (TAK Powered)"   

My 2 cents

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #48 –
An interesting read this thread is (lol how Yoda esk does that sound!).

Qest makes a good point
Quote
If you keep TAK closed, will it really benefit you? Are you sure? If you don't think so, then you should probably make the mob happy.

Sounds simple I know, but ultimately it's true. There's only so long that you'll work on TAK as real life becomes more important. And then what happens? TAK becomes a "rjamorim's ReallyRareWares" addition... which ironically no longer exists (unless there's a new url for it??).

I can't see why you wouldn't get credited for helping to improve FLAC once Josh got the code; he certainly appears to be open to that. Which is why you two should have a good chat on MSN etc and get it sorted.

You've already inferred that you never created TAK for monetary gain; so as long as you are satisfied with getting "credit" (best to be amicably and legally agreed in writing between you & Josh), then I think you'll be a happy man. You'll have more freedom in your real-life and yet as Josh also infers, you'll get the opportunity to continue improving your ideas via adding to the FLAC (or FLAC-branch) source code.

Mike Giacomelli & 2Bdecided have given some great info/advice.

The very fact you created this thread also, imo, implies you know what you want to do, but just want to air your thoughts and see what others think.

Sometimes you have to realise that things happen for a reason and often they work out for the better.

Like dB, that's my 2p

When will TAK go open source?

Reply #49 –
I am guessing most of your motivation comes from community recognition.

Just realise that all code you write will eventually be outdated and replaced. This can happen soon enough should your real life get in the way, as it has happened with almost every project.

What do you want to be remembered for? The author of a nice little program that was used for a short while (like Apollo, Reclock, Wingate, etc). Or as part of something bigger?

I have personally spent thousands of hours on open source projects that are quietly fading away. This is really sad for me.