mid=81#15143

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "mid=81#15143"

Henry Lane
6 years ago
Views:

1 Posted by joehillen - 06 Aug :10 I'm having a terrible time trying to find the Lightworks source code. I was under the impression that Lightworks was open source. Usually that means that it's possible to download the source code. I've searched the forums, and all I found was a post pointing to a dead link. mid=81#15143 Thanks Posted by rhinox Aug :52 I can't say for sure, but that link probably contained information that is available on the Roadmap page. As you will find there, the developers are releasing Lightworks in stages. Currently we're in Stage 2... full Windows release and extra codecs. Next is the OSX/Linux release followed then by the source code. Just a heads up... I presume that's a ways out! Posted by joehillen - 06 Aug :17 Wow! That's a really unfortunate Roadmap when you consider the reason I was looking for the source code is to see if there was any way that I could help. There really isn't much point in releasing code as open source if you aren't interested in community 1 / 7

2 contribution. I recommend the developers and management read up on the recommended practices for open source development. producingoss.com/en/index.html These are practices that most open source projects and companies live by. Posted by rhinox Aug :25 They haven't actually released Lightworks as Open Source yet. A quick search of the website (not including the forum) reveals only a couple pages saying anything about it. One reference on the Roadmap and another on the Terms of Service page. Both references are a future thing too. One last thing, I'm sure they know the recommended practices for open source projects Posted by jacquestoo - 07 Aug :01 Do you guys believe that it will ever happen? The general strategy looks very defensive - somehow not in line with a source code release. You can't take all these protective measures and make it congruent with turning part of the control over to the public. Something doesn't rhyme here... J. Posted by rhinox Aug :49 I don't know J. As it stands, EditShare has said that they will release the code and I choose to believe that they will. That may be naive (or stupid) but even though I am young I was raised that you are only 2 / 7

3 as good as your word. EditShare has more than proven to me that they are capable and so they get the benefit of the doubt. That being said, others have stated that it probably won't be a full source code. I would tend to agree with that view. As you said, they have locked some things down and so I can't imagine those things will be in the source. However, releasing the code doesn't really matter to me. I was just showing my support by answering a question. Posted by khaver - 07 Aug :44 Editshare has a boat load of options as to how they implement the "Open Source" phase. If they want they could even delay the release of code indefinitely. It's their code and they can do what they want with it. I kind of agree with rhinox202 and think that the full code won't be released but only the core of the code. This would allow 3rd part developers to create add-ons and parallel products that can link directly with core functionality of Lightworks. Like rendering servers and clients or new control surfaces or new import capabilities like Cinema DNG. The full code isn't needed for things like this. Posted by Greg_E - 07 Aug :15 Considering that it will probably use the same for pay codecs that the Windows version uses, they will not be able to release the code for those codecs. Even the hooks into those codecs may be protected. Please remember that they are only required to release on open source code that they include in the final product, anything addition that they decide to release will be a bonus and hopefully help the entire community. And the more grief they are given, the less likely they may be to follow through with the whole plan. Do you see Smoke or Flame on the open source shelf? Also remember that this is a very complex application and they don't want to release garbage (plenty of that available now), they have a reputation that must be upheld in the professional community, this isn't just some start up project that doesn't matter if it finishes or fails. 3 / 7

4 Posted by joehillen - 07 Aug :54 The fact that they are clearly ignoring the one of the core tenants of open source software development and the benefits that it brings, namely: "Release early. Release often." and the resulting community contributions speaks very poorly of them. Like I said earlier, if they are not interested in community input then there is literally no benefit to be open source other than as a marketing ploy. The way I see it, they are either arrogant, naive, or manipulative for not releasing sooner. Posted by briandrys - 07 Aug :21 As been mentioned a few times, Lightworks isn't currently Open Source, its something Editshare are working towards. They are currently prioritising creating a 64bit version, plus the Linix and mac versions because of the demand from users. I suspect the time to complain about open source is when it gets to that stage on their road map and they then don't come up with the goods, rather than before. Posted by jacquestoo - 07 Aug :27 OK, you guys hold your breath - if you like. You'll get more cynical as time goes on! J. 4 / 7

5 Posted by joehillen - 07 Aug :42 I'm with J. I in no way feel entitled to the source. I'm not a customer. It's their product. That's fine. It's the fact that they say that they intend to go open source and then ignore its basic principles. Principles that lots of projects and companies have used to create successful products. For example, I have experience porting windows applications to Linux and working with open source encoders (ffmpeg/libav). I wanted to see if there was any way that I could help. In my limited spare time, for free. If their overall intent is to release it, then why would they prolong the development by ignoring the opportunity for people like me to help. It increases their development time and therefore cost. It makes no sense. They don't know what their doing. Posted by Forum Admin - 07 Aug 2012 I'm not sure why you think it's OK to come onto this forum and say that we are either arrogant, naive, or manipulative for not releasing sooner. But I suspect it is that you don't have the faintest idea about the nature of this project, or about us. You certainly haven't read the copious comments from us here where we explain that there are technical and legal reasons why we haven't released the code to Open Source. 5 / 7

6 But, more than that, we have found that there are significantly more people that simply want to be able to download and install Lightworks on the Windows, Linux and OS X platforms than there are developers who want to get their hands on the source code (significant though that number is). So, rather than ignoring our potential users, we're actually responding to the actual demand, which is for a version that can be easily used, is written by us, and which we and the community can support. And, in case you hadn't noticed, we're making this available for nothing, unless users want to upgrade to stuff that we can't give away anyway, or they wish to contribute to the project, which, you may not be aware, we have, and will continue to fund, ourselves. We have set out our 4-stage map towards open source, and, in reaching that, the only agenda we will follow is the one that we consider to be the best way to get Lightworks used and loved by the maximum possible number of users. Posted by joehillen - 07 Aug :55 is written by us Alright, I've got my answer. Arrogant. Best of luck to you. Posted by Forum Admin - 07 Aug :04 Everything you've written here suggests that you have completely misunderstood the nature of this project. I also have to say that if anyone's arrogant about this it's you. Any more troll-like responses from you will not be allowed on this forum. Just to be clear: Of course users want software that's written by us at this stage. Is there anyone other than the original 6 / 7

7 developers of Lightworks, and the best of developers that have moved across to us from other products, who are better placed to move Lightworks forward? Of course there are great Open Source developers out there, but they would be working from a standing start. This is a specialist and complex product. We are not going to release it to Open Source until it is ready. Do to otherwise would cause untold issues. 7 / 7

Unable to import. ive read the docs/searched forums Posted by BuddyElkor - 05 May :02

Unable to import. ive read the docs/searched forums Posted by BuddyElkor - 05 May 2018 21:02 Using trial version. Im unable to import anything. Ive tried converting to mp4/aac/mp3/mpg2(ive tried many more