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

[Arpi]

Hi,

> > > Arpi writes:
> > > > 
> > > > I'LL BE BACK:
> > > 
> > > Who are you?
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't remember my name.
> > Yesterday i wrote it down to a paper, but i dont remember where
> > that paper is...
> 
> Doh, you mean, wait, it was.. Yes! The ..  Oh shoot, it's gone..

Don't worry, i've found the paper!
There is "tpis" written on it. Do you think it may be my name??
it's so unmeaningful... ;((((
no, it must be another paper.

> > > The main question, though, is: Which license will attract the highest
> > > number of (quality) developers in the long run.  You won't be
> > > developing it alone after all.
> > > 
> > > IMNSHO there is a clear preference among developers:
> > > 
> > > BSD < LGPL < GPL
> > > 
> > > Just so there is no misunderstanding: Of course there are BSD devs and
> > > people who prefer BSD over the others (same for LGPL), but if you make
> > > statistics you will come up with the above relationship.  This may not
> > > be the case for proprietary software developers and their bosses, but
> > > it surely is the case for free software (open source whatever you want
> > > to call it) developers.  Just compare the amount of development done
> > > on MPlayer by the former and the latter.  I doubt we will see this
> > > change.
> > 
> > I cannot agree here.
> > First of all, do a quick search for libraries on freshmeat, and re-count
> > licenses. I have a bet that lgpl will win it.
> 
> I'm much too lazy to do that, but here is a quick unscientific count
> on my (Debian unstable) system:
> 
> silver:/usr/share/doc$ for i in lib*; do (find $i -name copyright -exec
> grep /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL {} \;) >> /tmp/lgpl; done
> silver:/usr/share/doc$ wc -l /tmp/lgpl
> 106 /tmp/lgpl
> silver:/usr/share/doc$ for i in lib*; do (find $i -name copyright -exec
> grep /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL {} \;) >> /tmp/gpl; done
> silver:/usr/share/doc$ wc -l /tmp/gpl
> 117 /tmp/gpl
> silver:/usr/share/doc$ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/
> Artistic  BSD  GPL  GPL-2  LGPL  LGPL-2  LGPL-2.1
> 
> So it's 117 GPL vs 106 LGPL libraries.

no much difference. anyway it depends on how many apps you have
installed and how well they share the common libraries.

why don't you count gpl vs lgpl of lib* packages only?

> > Probably you didnt realized yet that g2 is more like a library framework,
> > than a standalone player app (like g1).
> 
> I know that perfectly well.

then how come your crazy ideas running g2 as child process via slave mode?
no one with a brain biger than a chick's one would ever do that.

> > Also. I think that quailty developers don't really care of the license,
> > they care more of the use of their work, ie if it can be used for
> > more thing it's better.
> 
> That's wrong, just look at Michael, he does care about licenses and
> free software.

exceptions makes rules sronger.


> > mplayer g1 was not gpl for the first 2 years, and
> > it was developed imho more quickly (by less people but they worked a lot
> > on it, not just contributing 1-2 small patches) than in teh past 2 years.
> 
> Maybe.  But then again maybe it was just the fact that there was so
> much ground to cover for Linux movie players back then.

maybe. if that's true, it also means i cant expect much interest of
g2 development.


> > So, maybe you're right that gpl app will get more small contributors, but
> > it's not true that more ppl will work fulltime (or at least as their primary
> > project for longer time period) on it if it's gpl. It's the reverse imho.
> 
> I think it is quite the opposite.  I know quite a few people that
> would not work fulltime on BSD since they would consider it free
> labor.  To a lesser degree this also applies to LGPL.
> 
> I still believe you'll get more devs with GPL.  The ones that don't
> care about licenses will join no matter what but those that do care
> about licenses might not.  So on one side you loose devs on the other
> you don't.
> 
> IMO you are trading in the hope of getting new developers for the risk
> of loosing a few of the old ones.  Not a good deal.

there is no one to loose.
except for Michael, but he accepted lgpl, with condition me coming back.
(also he accepted lgpl for libavcodec, which was much worse case)

> > Also, you may say that GPL will protect us from the evil, from stealing.
> > Hey, where did you sleep in the past 4 years then?
> > mplayer was stolen by many projects and companies, we don't even know
> > about most of them. we know a few, but couldnt really do anything
> > against them, think of warpvision, xbox mp or the latest kiss issues.
> 
> That's hardly a reason to give in to them.  Do you expect them to
> contribute back under LGPL?

yes.
they cannot contribute back if they steal the code illegally, as it
would mean they ack'ed the stealing. if they can use lgpl code
legally, why not contribute back? especially if the license forces them.
if they still dont contribute, you can still go to court, you know the way :)

> > Ok i know you're working on kiss problem, but i dont expect much from it.
> 
> Time will tell.

sure. time(-inf) ;)

> > I also know that LGPL still won't protect us, but as it gives more
> > freedom to users, they will more likely support us, instead of
> > silently stealing the code. Or i'm just idealist, just like all
> > you GPL fans, just a bit different way ;)
> 
> :)
> 
> > I think that widely used code is more important goal, than an
> > 100% rms-compatible freedom.
> 
> You are of course entitled to this opinion and now I begin to
> understand why you want LGPL.

great.

> > > IMO this is the worst of both worlds.  We don't get the funds that
> > > might come in through dual licensing and we don't have the protection
> > > and patch feedback offered through the GPL.
> > 
> > probably time to read lgpl then. it still guarantees the patch
> > feedback, just like gpl, thge only difference to gpl is that
> > lgpl allows code linking to non-gpl apps.
> 
> Rest assured, I have read the LGPL in its entirety before and I have
> read it again in its entirety when you sent the first mail in this
> thread.  I suggest this to everybody who hasn't yet, btw.
> 
> Let me clarify.  We will get patches for the core but many extensions
> will probably remain closed and out of bounds for us.

yes it may remain close of course. it's the goal what companies want to
reach. so they can legally using g2 core and theyr closed codecs.
BUT. but... but! we can copy their binary codec and use as-is.
without the need to rev. eng. the interfaces, as they either use
our apis (they should), or they have to give back the api/core changes.

ah, and as the core is in our hands, we can do anything we want,
including copy drm'ed content downloaded by closedsrc plugins :)

> > and dont say it's dream, i do know several companies willing to do so.
> > and it's not secret: i think that a big part of g2 plugins will be
> > implemented by developers sponsored by these companies
> 
> Again, time will tell.

sure. but it should be time(up to half year)

> > note, that the case of g1 was simpler, it was the first usable player,
> > the first player supporting filters etc. so most opensource
> > developers made trheir code to g1. but in case of g2, there is no
> > such priority. if we want ppl to work on g2, we need to pay them,
> > or work for years until g2 gets to a state where it's better than g1.
> > i realized that nearly no one was interested in g2 development,
> > even while it was gpl. and i cannot do all of it alone...
> 
> We'll have to see if this really improves then.

at least it cannot be worse.

> > > > Although it can be expected that some commercial users (think of
> > > > settopbox, divx player etc makers) will sponsor some of you to do
> > > > custom development for them. I'm personally not interested much in
> > > > these, but i was asked by several companies in the past year
> > > > (including some quite big ones), so i know there is such interest.
> > > 
> > > We've heard many rumours about that, but no backing at all.  Is it a
> > > secret?  Did you sign some sort of NDA?
> > 
> > no, i dont sign such things. actually i dont sign anything :)
> > anyway i'm not sure if i'm allowed to tell you, as they all asked
> > me in private,
> 
> Unless they explicitly ask you for confidentiality, it should be no
> problem and even then, they did not make you sign anything.
> 
> > but for a quick list: ESS-net (makers of lottery
> > terminals over europe, inetesred in g2 core for their nextgen firmware),
> > Antenna Hungaria (for their dvb receiver settopbox), some slovakian
> > cable tv (i dont know their name) for their video conversion/archival
> > purposes, dream media (advertisement projector boxes) and so on.
> > believe me, it's not fake.
> 
> OK, that is much better.  But what did they offer you?  Paying three
> developers for a year or what?  What were they willing to contribute?

no exact offers yet, as they all wait for better license than gpl.
probably they'll pay some developers to do the job.

as they all need some working usable framework, at least the development
of the g2 base should be sponsored. and it's what we need.


> > > I just don't believe in companies adopting LGPL MPlayer and
> > 
> > i dont care if you believe or not. as you are not a g2 developer, are you?
> 
> We'll see.

i dont think that you can code much in g2 :)
and html/doc stuff is already reserved for gabu :)


> > > > WHY NOT GPL?
> > > > GPL is just too limited for the purpose of g2 core. Even Michael and
> > > > Alex agreed on irc. We need some license which allows at least linking
> > > > to plugins and UIs under different (even closed source) license.
> > > > Why? Think of a 3rd party company developing codecs (like 3ivx, On2 etc)
> > > > they want to make their codecs available for linux (and other unix)
> > > > platforms natively (no DLL hack), but they cannot open the source,
> > > > or they can but they dont want to put it under GPL.
> > > 
> > > What license would they put it under?  BSD?  Surely not..
> > 
> > dunno
> 
> OK, what I was trying to say is that those companies would choose GPL
> if they were to open up their code.  Then they can use a dual license
> strategy and they are prepared to sue abusers to hell and back.

if it's gpl and something, then it's free software, you can do
anything you want with it... oh, i have a deja-vu :)


> > > Why would you need such a thing to drive such a kiosk?  What's the
> > > difference between a video and a browser kiosk?  I have seen browser
> > > kiosks running Linux + Mozilla.  I mean why would they need a
> > > different license?
> > 
> > because of using special hardware which needs nda, or non-gpl libraries?
> > because of using their special player ui designed for that kiosk, which
> > they dont want to release under gpl?
> > (becase then its bugs could be find easier and the kiosks could be
> > cracked?)
> 
> security by obscurity?  OK, this is getting offtopic..

sure. but it's their problem...

> > > The city of Münster wants to become the most wired city in the world
> > > (they have fiber all over already) and offer high performance WLAN and
> > > content streaming for its citizens.  They want to build all the
> > > infrastructure on free software and release everything they create as
> > > GPL.  They were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the
> > > streaming solution.
> > 
> > and why would they sponsor us?
> 
> As I said, they were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the
> streaming solution and would sponsor modifications.

what modifications they need? a nice gui?

> > > Then there was another company that wants to sponsor G2 development as
> > > a backend for a VJ (video jockey) application.  I forgot their name
> > > and apparently lost their damn business card, but Alex should have it.
> > 
> > and their VJ app would be also GPL ? i really doubt it.
> 
> Yes, it would be GPL.

then they cant sell it, so they cant get money from it, so they
cant sponsor development unless they are also sponsored by
gov or something.

> > also, if you do simple math: lgpl allows linking to gpl and other
> > license apps, gpl allows linking to gpl only. it alone means much more
> > users of lgpl libraries. and more users mean more developers too.
> 
> There is no doubt that LGPL means more users.  The question is what
> brings more devs.  We've both made simple math about that, we'll see.
> 
> > > > VF: i plan to use my code from pre47, and don't wait for Rich's
> > > >     vaporware. and as Rich will probably refuse LGPL anyway,
> > > >     it should not be a problem :)
> > > 
> > > >From talking to Rich I know that he is opposed to LGPL.
> > > 
> > > > i expect big flames about this, but please keep it short :)
> > > 
> > > I tried my very best.
> > 
> > you're slowly improving...
> 
> I'll take that as a compliment ;-P
> 
> Actually this was the first mail I sent, but my smarthost sometimes
> refuses to accept the authentication, so this one got stuck.
> 
> Anyway, I'll keep standing on the sidelines and watch what happens.
> My opinion will obviously not sway yours, but I felt the discussion
> needed a dose from the other side as well.
> 
> As should be obvious by now, I'd much prefer GPL.

i see.
but as i already said, i'm personally not interested in gpl g2 development.
if someone needs a gpl player, use g1. if you need a clean library framework
then you'll also need some acceptable license too.


A'rpi / MPlayer, Astral & ESP-team

--
MPlayer's new image: happiness & peace & cosmetics & vmiklos