From:
                                                            5/17/97 11:00 PM
Subject: MAX Digest - 16 May 1997 to 17 May
1997To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 5 messages totalling 209 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Is it possible to sell your standalone Max stuff? (3)
  2. MAX patchers as C functions
  3. MaxPlay / Native speak / ftp

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

Date:    Sat, 17 May 1997 08:27:46 EDT
From:    Roland Hemming <100414.2220@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Is it possible to sell your standalone Max stuff?

>I would say this differently. + is still one function call in Max. However,
>the data for each + object is replicated 100 times. What Stephen might
>really want to say is that if you think of a subpatcher as a function,
>then 100 subpatchers takes up 100 times as much memory as one
>of them. But the subpatchers are storing internal state too,
>something that function calls don't do. In any case, the actual
>C code that executes for any Max object exists in only one
>place.

Here's a question, is anybody else doing this? I now write my MAX patchers
as if
they were C functions. This involves extensive use of the forward object but
it
has meant my programs are 1/4 of the size they used to be. They are also
easy to
trace and debug although putting your 'project' files together can be
confusing
especially if you are fond of using changeable arguments.

I have wondered if it would be possible to make MAX do this properly rather
than
the half baked way I use? If patchers could be proper functions it would
avoid
the re-entrancy problems I have to worry about using my method. Something
for
MAX 4.0 perhaps...

>And yes, you can sell your Max-based standalone application, but you
>can't give away MAXplay. Although the legal consequences of
>doing so are not going to be immense.

This is interesting cos ages ago I asked Opcode if I could upload MAXplay
3.0
onto the Opcode Compuserve forum. I recieved permission to do this to allow
the
few of us MAXers who haunt the Opcode forum there to exchange collectives.
For
all I know this could have been uploaded somewhere on the Internet too. I
assume
Opcode knew this when they gave permission. Given this what is the point of
limiting the distrubution of MAXplay. Surely it is just like the Adobe
Acrobat
player?

What might be useful for MAXers is that when I asked Opcode if I could
distribute OMS with my application they said it ws OK providing I kept it as
a
seperate entity (presumeably on seperate disks and as a seperate install)
and
had all the usual copyright notices on the disks (inside and outside). They
even
offered to sell me official OMS disks 'for a nominal charge' but I didn't
get
the exact price.

Roland

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/RolandHemming

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

Date:    Sat, 17 May 1997 11:05:03 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: MAX patchers as C functions

Roland Hemming:
>Here's a question, is anybody else doing this? I now write my MAX patchers
as if
>they were C functions. This involves extensive use of the forward object
but it
>has meant my programs are 1/4 of the size they used to be. They are also
easy to
>trace and debug although putting your 'project' files together can be
confusing
>especially if you are fond of using changeable arguments.

Perhaps you gave an example of this in the past (if so, I apologize for not
keeping it), but could you provide an example of what you mean here?  I'm
interested in anything that can reduce an app to 1/4 the size it was
before.

Thanks,
Stephen Kay

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

Date:    Sat, 17 May 1997 17:47:27 +0200
From:    dudas 
Subject: MaxPlay / Native speak / ftp

1) David Z writes:

>And yes, you can sell your Max-based standalone application, but you can't
>give away MAXplay. Although the legal consequences of doing so are not
>going to be immense.

I thought the whole point of making MaxPlay in the first place was so it
could be freely and legally distributed with peoples' patches, like the
QuicktimeVR player or the OvalTune player of yore.

(I guess there's something I just don't understand about the way music
software companies work.)

----------
2) Also of note:

Stephen Kay has offered to take a look at the code for the FAT version of
Michael Klingbeil's "speak" object. It will go on the IRCAM ftp when it's
ready.

----------
3) Announcement:

The IRCAM ftp site for public-domain Max externals was re-organized a month
or so ago and it has been up and running at its new location:

ftp://ftp.ircam.fr/pub/forumnet/max/

You must indicate the whole path as the folder called 'max' is currently
invisible.

The ftp site is STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION (i.e. there are no helpful text
files that clearly explain its contents, or why in the world it's in a
folder called forumnet, etc...) but everything is there.

There are three sub-directories in the max directory: 68k, FAT, and
incoming.
Most of the new stuff is in the FAT directory, so if you're looking for the
latest versions of max objects, you should probably start there, and then
go to the 68k directory when you can't find what you're looking for. We've
decided to remove the old 68k-only versions of objects that exist as FAT
binaries, so even if you're still using Max 3.0 (or earlier), check out the
FAT directory first!

An html front-end explaining the ftp site's contents will hopefully be put
in place soon. Tom Mays and I will keep you informed.
(For those who are adverse to web browsers, a text file containing a
summary of the max ftp site's contents will also be prepared.)

-Richard

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

Date:    Sat, 17 May 1997 18:16:52 +0200
From:    Peter Castine 
Subject: Re: Is it possible to sell your standalone Max stuff?

David Zicarelli:
>>And yes, you can sell your Max-based standalone application, but you
>>can't give away MAXplay. Although the legal consequences of
>>doing so are not going to be immense.

Nick Rothwell:
>
>Is there a good (i.e. not lawyer-penned) reason for this?
[schnipp]
> (The situation now is like people
>passing around Mac applications with an encapsulated copy of System 7
>running in each one.)

I think Nick's old enough to perhaps remember the days when a typical Mac
application fit together with a System Folder on a single 400kB disk (and I
_know_ David was writing nifty software back then already). Back in the
days of the Fat Mac (and into the Plus era), anyone who wanted to
distribute Apple System software with his or her app had to execute a
license with Apple to do so. (And, you see, it really did make sense back
then to `encapsulate' a copy of the system software with each app).

I suppose part of the justification (for requiring a license) is that Apple
wanted to make sure that the application software included a disclaimer at
least as strong as the standard Apple disclaimer (no warranty of fitness
for a particular task, etc.). And no software vendor wants to ever leave
the impression `it's OK to just re-distribute software' (Example: I, like
most freeware authors, want [at least] notification before MidiTyper can be
pressed onto a CD.) Similarly, even today, you have to execute a license to
redistribute Internet Explorer and the like.

Sorry if these seem like `lawyer-penned' arguments. I think it's more
`business-management-penned'. (Maybe neither is as cool as a programmer's
or an artist's argument, but that doesn't invalidate the arguments out of
hand.)

But to the gist of the discussion: what would it take to get Opcode to
grant a distribution license for MaxPlay to an interested 3rd party
software developer? Hopefully, not much more than a signature on a piece of
paper to the effect that both parties agree to the deal and that no one can
sue anyone else because of it?

Cheers,

Peter

------------------ http://www.prz.tu-berlin.de/~pcastine/ ------------------
Dr. Peter Castine           | The e-mail address still works. It's just the
pcastine@prz.tu-berlin.de   | university computer center that's been flaky
                            | (particularly on public holidays).
                            | If mail bounces, please try again.

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

Date:    Sat, 17 May 1997 17:08:45 +0100
From:    Nick Rothwell 
Subject: Re: Is it possible to sell your standalone Max stuff?

>>And yes, you can sell your Max-based standalone application, but you
>>can't give away MAXplay. Although the legal consequences of
>>doing so are not going to be immense.
>
>This is interesting cos ages ago I asked Opcode if I could upload MAXplay
3.0
>onto the Opcode Compuserve forum. I recieved permission to do this to allow
the
>few of us MAXers who haunt the Opcode forum there to exchange collectives.

Erm: the MAX 3.0 installation program says that you can give away MAXplay.

         Nick Rothwell, CASSIEL        contemporary dance projects
         http://www.cassiel.com        music synthesis and control

             years, passing by, VCO, VCF, and again, and again

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

End of MAX Digest - 16 May 1997 to 17 May 1997
**********************************************