[MPlayer-dev-eng] MPlayer licensing [and lotso other stuff as I'm typingSat Nov 24 12:52:16 2001

[Arpi]

Hi,

> It's the Question that drives us, Felix Buenemann :
> > IMHO we should really start clearing mplayer licensing and make it visible to 
> > everyone.
> After seeing these slashdot dorks (who knows, maybe _they_ are the majorty..)
> I thought the exact same. :(
> 
> 
> > 1. Do we want to make it fully GPL?
> Should be.
Why? As you see, being non-GPL helps us more now :)
(as they can't use demuxer code in os2 version as its' non-gpl)

> > IMHO the best thing is to rule out external non-GPL code from mplayer and 
> > make it fully GPL, because then we can be fully assured of our code being 
> > protected by it and with it by the FSF.
> Agreed.
Disagreed.

> > Ok I know you think now: But WTF then with binary packages? Yes, we cannot 
> > prohibit them anymore then, but we can still deny bugreports and discourage 
> > binary packages.
> Yes :/
No.
Until we make it possible to create usefull binary packages, we shouldn't
change the license. And after it's done, i'm unsure it should be GPL. maybe
other licenses (BSD?) are better for our needs.

> IMHO _we_ should create our own rpm/deb packages, and patch it (like when
> segfault or sig, inform users about the advantages of recompiling, RTFM ;)
> etc).
yes.

> > So the binary thing is nothing we have really control, so we shouldn't fight 
> > against it.
> Yes.. :(
I think we have control, by denying support and making it illegal.

> > Rather improve our mailinglists mechanisms by enforcing subscription and make 
> > sure users answer set of questions so they don't send improper mails eg. 
> > bugreports on binary builds.
> Patch binary mplayers to contain a certain strings (v0.60-BINARYBUILD) which
> can be (?) filtered from mailman ;) (when included, ofcoz..)
most of current users (who are able to compile it) don't include it.
why do you expect it from apt-get install lamers?

> > Simply add a printf at mplayer startup that states: "If you are experiencing 
> > performance problems, please read DOCS/SPEED"
> (still theory) No links, they won't read them. Print UPPERCASE, short messages.
yes.

> > In there (or a html like speed-issues.html) put something like:
> > "If you are using binary distributions of MPlayer, which is strongly 
> > discouraged, be aware of the fact that they degrade MPlayer's performance by 
> > not allowing it to make full use of the target system's hardware.
> > So if you are experiencing speed problems with MPlayer, try building it from 
> > source yourself first and also try cvs version as it might include major 
> > speed improvements or new features."
> Too long :)
Yes.

Maybe we should make a multimedia presentation with charts showing speed of
selfcompiled and binary package versions and play it every time the player
is started :)

> > Btw. we should remove stuff like the "GPL sux" from our public homepage, this 
i agree
and it was put out without my permission...

> > And we should aswell stop to insult other people on the page, there are 
> > better ways to say that other people did something bad, without insulting 
Agree. You should remove all these news entries, and display only one
describing facts and current status of warpvision thingie.
And current news entry is bad, because our problem is not (only) hiding the
source, it's hiding the copyright.

> > I know Gabu, you like to flame ;), but does it have to be on our front page?
> I should start my own MPlayer forum on mphq :)
yes :)

> > IMHO we're better of keeping the flaming in private and only put the facts to 
> > the page.
> Yes, I agree.
ok

> > Ok, tell me what you think of this and don't flame me to death for it ;)
> All that really matters is Arpi's opinion.
:)

> when? where?
> nowhere. never. (arpi)
:)


A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team

--
mailto:arpi at thot.banki.hu
http://esp-team.scene.hu