Playing PSF rips on OS X?
 

Is there an app I can use to play PSF/PSF2 rips on OS X?
Ive been looking, but google is failing me.
The only app I found was a command line one from a japanese site that gave me:
Is there something else I can use?

There's Audio Overload, but it's far from perfect. It doesn't have all the options of the windoze plugins and it even seems to speed up the tempo of files slightly. Plus it's coded by Richard Bannister, the plague of the MacOS software community.

On the upside, it does work. More or less.

Thanks. :D

Hopefully its not too bad.

Here's one for you, if you want to play around with X Windows.

http://audacious-media-player.org/Main_Page


Looks promising and I might give it a whirl myself. I hate having to keep a spare windows box or virtual system around just for emulated music.

Eh, I haven't gotten X installed, I may though if that other app doesn't work well enough.

Well, I downloaded Audio Overload, and it still wont play minipsf2 files, so it looks like im installing X. :\

Care to elaborate? (honestly curious)

Nifty, haven't heard of this before. I'll have to check it out. Very interested in that UADE plugin.

Yeah, that's because PSF and PSF2 are two different formats. Audio Overload only plays PSFs.

Pre-rant edit: Reading this again...wow. I just want to clarify that I am in no way angry at you for asking, and I hope my (downright Ellisonian) diatribe here is helpful and/or informative on some level.

Bannister is a scumbag who (somehow, $DEITY only knows how) gets the rights to port open-source programs to Mac OS X and then strips out their functionality, only to include it in a closed-source, for-pay plugin of his own design. It's a gigantic slap in the face to everything the OSS movement stands for, and the man honestly deserves to be shot like the crazed, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth animal he is.

From an older version of his FAQ (not a direct quote, but from memory):

Yeah, building in a crippling feature to what was once fucking GPLed software. I really hope his family dies in a plane crash and they call him in to sort out the body parts.

Edit: And he gets to see his little sister's desperate, pleading, lifeless eyes staring him in the face from the morgue table.

While I'm no fan of Richard Bannister, he has every legal right to do what he does. The source code of the original GPL versions of the software is still available if someone else wishes to make a port. A port which would undoubtedly be better than that produced by Bannister, due to improvements from the community.

I was under the impression that releasing parts of GPLed software under a closed-source license constituted a GPL violation.

The copyright holder can place the software under multiple licenses, if he wishes. He retains most of the rights to his software under the GPL. If he decides to license the software to Richard Bannister separately under a non-free license, that's his legal right, as reluctantly acknowledged by GNU and the FSF.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....eUnderGPLAndNF

In that case, Bannister would not be subject to the terms of the GPL, since his rights to the code are not derived from the GPL. The sole license he holds to that code is a non-free license. On the other hand, if you obtain a piece of software under the GPL, and then attempt to release part of that code, or a modified version of that software under anything other than the GPL, that is a violation, since your rights to modify and distributethat software are derived from the GPL.

Software is only covered by the GPL if you accept the terms of that license. Of course, if you don't accept the license, you have no legal right to use the software, to distribute it or to make derivative works based upon it. Bannister has sidestepped that issue by obtaining the rights under a separate license.

If a programer wishes to create a non-free fork of a piece of software covered under the GPL, he must first reject the terms of the GPL, and then contact the copyright holder, usually the author, and ask him if he will consider licensing the code to him under a separate non-free license. Most free software authors will probably state that this is not an option. Some others will offer to discuss terms.

Ahhhhhhhh, okay, that makes sense.

What we need, then, is for the OSS developers to tell him to go take a flying leap, and that it's GPL or nothing for him.

CelticWhisper: Anger issues much? =o
lol, I see your point though. I'm thinking about setting up dualboot on my iBook. (OS X/Ubuntu)