[MPlayer-dev-eng] MplayerXP vs Mplayer. Hall of truth.

[Nick Kurshev]

Hello, Gabucino!

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:50:13 +0100 you wrote:

> Nick Kurshev didn't RTFM :
> > > such slow systems (like p1 or old celerons) usually has no xv-capable cards
> > > but dga or vidix or xmga (1 buffers) could work there fine
> > Middle size divx4 can be fitted into 2MB of video upto 7 times.
> It's not only about card, it's about X driver too!
> 
I fixed vo_xv upto 10 buffers so version of X11 doesn't matter - you can grow it upto infinity.
> 
> > > > Every commercial program can be compiled with GPL'ed shared object.
> > > LGPLed. not GPLed.
> > It's disputable question
> It's not disputable, Arpi is right. This is why LGPL was invented.
> 
Disputable - did you hear about int 0x80?
What does mean the question there is .so files or not?
If you can watch their names through ldd - it's not a problem.
(For example mplayerxp already now loads divx4linux through dlopen
so you are not able to find out that it uses this library without
depth studing of the sources.
But communicating with GPL'ed program (kernel) does present always under Linux.
So it's not a question at all.
> 
> > Anyway - I can redistribute your sources under GPL as you said.
> Nick, what do you want to achieve with this? What good does it get, bringing
> this GPL-nonGPL topic forth again - just some days/weeks before full-GPL
> release? In case you stay with separate mplayerxp project, you should
> keep our "license" until we make it GPL.
If you want:
#MPlayer is basically GPL, but contains some non-GPL code which is not allowed to be distributed in binary form, and also contains
#the OpenDivX library which has special license. We are still developing towards GPL.
#
#Distributing MPlayer in the form of binaries and/or binary packages is currently impossible, speaking about both technical and law
#areas. Detailed information can be found in the second part of this file, and it is recommended to read it.

I guess that non-GPL'ed code is not mplayer.c? :)
It was never declared explicitly!!!

#Reasons: Law
#
#MPlayer describes the sourcecode. It contains several files with incompatible licenses especially on the redistribution clauses. As
                                               ^^^^^^^
#source files, they are allowed to coexist in a same project.
#
#Therefore, NEITHER BINARIES NOR BINARY PACKAGES OF MPlayer ARE ALLOWED TO EXIST SINCE SUCH
#OBJECTS BREAK LICENSES. PEOPLE WHO DISTRIBUTE SUCH BINARY PACKAGES ARE DOING ILLEGAL
#ACTIVITIES.
#
#So if you know somebody who maintains a binary package then forward her/him this text and (ask him to) contact us. What (s)he is
#doing is illegal and IT IS NO LONGER MPlayer, but his/her mplayer. If it breaks, it is his/her fault. Don't come and cry on the
#MPlayer mailing lists, you will most likely be blacklisted.

Except the juristic lacks:
The word 'several' is countable noun in english. But those sources were never counted!
I don't want to play in SUCH games. When I asked Arpi what I should remove also from mplayerxp
he wanted say: mplayer.c - it's not GPL'ed code.

But sorry! mplayer package never had a normal licence. Only some files in this package have
explicitly given licence. Well - I asked developer - what should I remove also?
Only Mike Melanson said me that his stuff is GPL'ed.

Well, Arpi told before that I can redistribute his stuff under GPL but I've top amazed:
#> you should at least ask us, at least my code is not GPL yet. i'll allow
#>   you to distribute my code as gpl (i don't want to do so, but unless i do
#>   it, you will say 'you just want to sabotage my xp project' so i do),
#>   but you should at least ask me and the others...
Arpi said that his code is NOT GPL'ed.
Then what licence covers that (Sun's Moziila'a, OSF, BSDlike)? Nothing!
There is no expicitly given licence which was PUBLISHED. In this connexion,
that attack on OS/2 developers looked strange since they got unlicensed stuff
- so what you want from them? (Although then it was presented as stealing).
But nobody can steal CODE which is in PUBLIC DOMAIN or under BSDlike licence for examlpe
or without licence at all).
So delaying of licence's question doesn't increase mplayer's profit at all.
(I will not amaze if this code was included in some commercial soft).
> 
> -- 
> Gabucino
> "I think the developers placed this bug intentionally, so the GUI won't run
> on specific systems. They are Debian-lovers, I see this from the docs." -- lama
> 

Best regards! Nick
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-dev-eng/attachments/20020318/b122bc6f/attachment.pgp>