[MPlayer-dev-eng] MPlayer licensing [and lotso other stuff as I'm tySat Nov 24 15:42:53 2001

[Arpi]

Hi,

> However, IMHO opendivx and decore directories should be removed.
> Arpi, can you do that with the current state of source? If no, what are
> the problems?

encore is not used currently, so can be removed.
opendifx can be removed too, but needs some ifdef in dec_video.c
i think we should wait until the really open opendivx comes out
(videodecoding.de or what) and replace with them. afaik they are gpl.

> > > > 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.
> 
> And why? You can label MPlayer as GPL. It's NOT a license issue that we
> won't accept bugreports from binary distributed versions.
> 
> Or at least, imho MPlayer should be READY to change to fully GPL. I mean,
> demuxer code and other parts (copyrighted by Arpi) can be changed to GPL
> any time when Arpi wants to do it. Other GPL parts are already GPL :)
As i don't like GPL, you should rewrite it (libmpdem :)) or force me ;)
(rewritting is easier and makes indenting more ugly :))

> So only non-GPL, and non-Arpi codes :) should be thinking on. The advantage
> of 'ready to be GPL state, but it's not GPL at the moment' is creating
> MPlayer license, and IF we have run time plugins and so on (so removed
> compile time restrictions of features and optimizations) we can EASILY convert
> MPlayer into full GPL.
yes but someone should do that runtime shit. optional.

> I think now we should try to have only GPL and Arpi licensed parts inside
> MPlayer (or other parts as well whose authors are agreed with licenses of
> GPL). MPlayer license should be something 'it's GPL, but binary distribution
> is not allowed'. If we can reach this, we can make MPlayer GPL at ANY time
> without ANY work than rewriting license information :)
:)

> > > 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.
> 
> Maybe we can write scripts to compile mplayer daily (from CVS) for some CPUs
> and pack them into deb,rpm ...
> Of course with a BIG red alert: 'we can't support that versions' and so.
yes

> > > > Btw. we should remove stuff like the "GPL sux" from our public homepage, this 
> > i agree
> > and it was put out without my permission...
> 
> Ehhh. Gabu, PLEASE remove it. It's a point that Arpi said something similar
> on an iRC channel of us, but imho he doesn't like it to be placed on HP ...
yes

> > > > 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.
> 
> Yes. We should stop flame with WarpVision guys, and coding instead :)
> Of course SOME info could remain about problems with WarpVision ... but not
> a whole flame-thread, please ...
we should borrow some os/2 coders to make the kickass os/2 port :)
so it will be easier to make warpvision 1.0 for that guy :)


A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team

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