[MPlayer-G2-dev] the awakening, license changes and so on...

[Diego Biurrun]

Arpi writes:
> 
> > Alexander Strasser writes:
> > > Don't forget it be should the movie framework for ALL. Think about computer
> > > games and lot's of other out of movie playback applications ( as the
> > > main focus is on something else ), that can't publish their code, using
> > > MPlayer G2 for movie playback and what not.
> > 
> > Games could use GPL MPlayer G2 for movie playback without having to
> > publish their code.
> 
> since when its' allowed to link gpl library to non-gpl (closedsrc) app???

I know that it's not allowed.  But a game doesn't have to link to
MPlayer, it could just use e.g. slave mode or start a new process or
thread.

> > > And to get back to the first
> > > point it will never be widly accepted as an industrial standard if it excludes
> > > half of the possible uses and users.
> > 
> > But what if half of the possible uses are bad (DRM, etc)?
> 
> it's question of viewpoint.
> and the topic of drm is a very good example of this:
> what happens to drm contents on non-m$ systems:
> a, unplayable
> b, some day being cracked and so playable illegally (css...)
> c, playable legally using closedsrc plugin (here g2 comes in the picture)
> d, playable using broken crap full-closedsrc app made by drm maker
> 
> (i vote for b, but until its done, c is still better than d or a)

Good point.  I vote for b and I would contest that this is illegal,
but this takes us away from the topic at hand.  I tend to prefer c
over a or d, but c does have the drawback that it will slow down
people working on b.  It is a fact that "pain" speeds up development.
Closed codecs work with DLL loaders, so no big problem.

BTW, have you thought about the possibility that G2 would still be
avoided because it could easily be used to transcode that closed
content into free formats?  MEncoder can encode everything that
MPlayer can play.  Microsoft will have no motivation write plugins for
a player that will almost instantly convert WMV13 to snow.

> ok i see your and rich's and rms' viewpoint of 'drm sux', i agree too,
> but you simply cannot get drm 'erased' from the world, it will be used
> and used even more in the future, that on-demand audio/video broadcasting
> gets even more popular. you may fight against it, but it will reach
> nothing, except that you wont be able to play these contents.

Don't be too pessimistic, so far DRM is nowhere except in some CEO's
dreams.  Let us first see how the patent issue works out, these things
go hand in hand.  The EU is going to vote on sw patents in september.
Maybe we can discuss our options again after that.

Anyway, DRM cannot work, so don't fear it tooo much.  Any encryption
scheme where the receiver and the attacker are the same person is
bound to fail.  In this context Cory Doctorow's talk to M$ employees
"Microsoft Research DRM talk" is quite enlightening (and entertaining)
as well:

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Diego