Plz clarify the license.

I have been waiting all 1.xx development for a move toward the open source licence you promised back in the Yalac days.
Years later there it is still not open & now you don't even speak anymore of opening the source.

Years ago, the reason not to open the source was that you intended:
1: to clean the code because you didn't wanted to look as a bad coder as it is your job.
2: you wanted to publish a research paper & didn't wanted to be stolen before publication.
Several years later these alibi don't stand a second.

Plz make it clear to everyone that Tak is closed source & as such is a replacement for Monkey Audio, and not a replacement for Flac or even Wavpack.

Years ago I never forced you to advertise for open source, years later I am forced to conclude that Tak open sourceness is nothing more than vaporware.

It is not a problem you have the right to create your personnal closed source codec.
But plz don't show off with your ultra highly optimized codec in front of people using only open source codecs after telling them that you would release the source code.

... and plz don't tell once again that I am rude or that there is bitter word in my mouth, I am bored of having to ask each time there is a new release.

I have already been warned 33% for telling publicy that you were a liar, I don't want to be warned each time there is a new Tak release.

Just make it clear that Tak is closed source & will remain, instead of telling people that ask that you will release the source on Saint Glinglin's Day

... and yes, if it flatters your ego, Tak 2.0 -p1 results are just breathtaking, I would love to use it ... if only it was open.

I don't understand this obsession with open sourcing. Its like extortion these days that the developer HAS to open source everything. Developers should have freedom to keep something for themselves. I do think however that decoders should have open specs so they are supported well.

Anyway this is lossless - What are we gaining by switching codecs like fashion ? Not even %10 more compression.
Replacing Monkeys Audio: I don't understand as both are windows codecs, Yet MA is more mature and more supported (native iriver, samsung, rockbox, linux-port)

TAK doesn't HAVE to be open source,
but TBeck HAS to be honest with end users.

I never annoyed the developer of OptimFROG because it wasn't open source, as its developer made it very clear that it wasn't.

It's quite pathetic that you use the word "extortion" when I never asked for anything in the first place.
Some people (other than me) asked for an open source license LOOONG ago, TBeck said that it will be open source later. Now, years later, if later is never, then TBeck must tell it publicy.

If TAK is closed source then it's OK. But it must be clear.

Sorry, I never "extorted" anything. I am not a follower of RMS's sect.

For me, the main concern is that TAK will remain a Windows-only codec and therefore remain even more of a niche codec than it was going to be. I barely read TAK threads anymore because I know I won't be able to use it.

That it hasn't been opened up yet doesn't mean that it never will. Your schedule is not paramount. Also, no, he need not "must" do anything. TAK is his baby and he is free to do with it what he wishes. I'm not sure why some people have such a bloated sense of entitlement.

Look, he makes some free software in his spare time. It is what it is. You've already expressed that unless it's open source you won't use it. You, along with others, have been heard many times. If the fact that it's not open yet bothers you so much then move on. If you're so bored of asking when it will be open, move on. Hell, saying "I don't want to be warned each time there is a new Tak release" makes it sound like you're somehow the victim. You have self-control. Don't bring up the open source topic and/or don't post at all in the thread. It really is that simple.

Here you are right. I feel i have to publish a definite statement. And this for quite a long time.

The primary reason why i haven't done it yet: It requires a quite difficult deceision. I don't want to make a statement before i am absolutely sure what to do.

I understand that i deserve critics regarding this issue. When i exactly know what to do i will also describe my problems with this deceision process and hopefully will be able to evoke some understanding for my difficulties.



I remember only one instance when i told you, that i found your comments a bit rude. And i don't have any influence on your warning level. Possibly you are talking about somebody else?


It doesn't flatter my ego that i am possibly encountering similar trouble like really famous people: People focussing there bad emotions on me and making a devil out of me...

Thomas

Thomas, thanks for the continued great work. Its a very nice codec and I have really liked it in my tests. I still use FLAC because of its wider compatibility. I would use FLAC if it had more support and I agree it may get more support if it was open source. Maybe the release of 2.0 would be a good time to finally open it to the public.

Anyway, thanks again, and keep up the great work.

Not exactly a devil It's not a crime to hesitate for such a long time, but it definitely is a mistake, and one that's very inconvenient for many potential TAK users and developers.

Thomas, it really isn't a hard decision. TAK is closed-source until you decide to open it. Case closed.

And that has no bearing on my using it. It's a wonderful codec with excellent compression. As long as my players can keep playing it, I'll keep using it.

@sauvage78: We're bored of hearing you ask every time there's a new release. Stop asking and wait for him to announce it.

Agree to Zarggg's word: "TAK is closed-source until you decide to open it. Case closed".

I can understand you want to focus on the work before Open Source it, no hurry on the Open Source topic, depends on your own schedule. My friend did have similar experience, after opening the source, there's only 1 person submit improved code but others just plain talk.

You need to take care of the core design, to keep concentrate on the most important part, let other people implement TAK with the help of SDK, so you only need to have a good SDK for them.

As a first stept, the license case MUST be very clear. Otherwise the format will not spread. Lets not forget this is only HA. HA is a very tiny part of the universe. How many hardcore tak users do we have? 100? 1000? Not enough! Tak would share the same fate as musepack. This would be sad, because it's a good format, I like it, but sadly, I now encode everything to flac, because of support on target devices.

Well either way, I really don't understand why is it such a problem to make a codec open-sourced... I mean, looking at this "story" of TBeck and his TAK shortly explained in the first post makes it sound like open-sourcing your program is like selling your soul to the devil, I don't know, like that's some ultimate evil to be greatly feared and aproached with great care... :-/

I mean, WTF? If you want to make the codec open-source then do it, no one is going to beat you up for it or steal the codec away. If you don't want to make it open-source then say so, it's as simple as that. :-/

Making decoders at least open source allows people to add support to other software and devices.

At least if you ever want to use TAK on a portable, having a GPL compliant (or better yet BSD) decoder to add to rockbox would be a good first step

Most of us TAK users are not concerned about the nature of TAK's source code. What Sauvage demands (a little bluntly for a request made over the internet ) is that you clarify the status of the code for the present, i.e., now. If it is going to be closed-source until Dec 2010, just say so. If it will be closed-source till Jan 2020, please, just state so too. There is a certain degree of suspicion, perhaps among developers and open-source advocates, levelled at those who are giving the impression of jumping on the open-source bandwagon for selfish interest. Please tread carefully in such waters, and

rock on! TAK is amazing!

With a certain degree of accuracy, I can say TAK has elements of intellectual property in its code that must be addressed first. How do I know this? Thomas explained he had been working on his code (YALAC) off and on for over ten years and was satisfied it would be useful and competitive, and some alpha testing later it became TAK.

As anyone could imagine, having put a certain amount of work into a personal project requires recognition when it reaches a milestone such as TAK today. It also seems securing intellectual property rights must be extra work, and also be well worthwhile for the author particularly in an open-source situation where tedious work/testing/experimenting could potentially be mimicked and/or depreciated (a worst-case scenario).

Licensing, schmicensing If it works, don't break it

Thomas,

Please don't take this issue too seriously. I too have no problems on the license of TAK, and you don't even need to suffer on this.

Just improve TAK as you like it. That's good enough.

William