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

[Fre_ax]

Hi!

> Moin,
>
> Damn, i'm again using worktime for somthing... stupid...
>
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:01:05AM +0200, Arpi wrote:
>> > Why do you want to get commercial users onto MPlayer ?
>> > Just for the sponsoring ?
>>
>> argh. no, of course.
>> i just want to "legalize" (bad word for this, but i dont know the
>> right one) video playback under non-m$ systems. most of the
>> codec/container makers would port/develop their stuff for non-m$
>> systems, if they have any chance, ie. any usable API they can use,
>> like quicktike or dshow on win/mac. unfortunatelly they don't have
>> any 'standard api' under unix/linux, so they end up either not
>> supporting unix, or they hack together some useless standalone player
>> (see realplay, bink player etc).
>>
>> we currently support most formats through win32 DLLs run by big hacks
>> in emulators. ok, it's a working (x86-only) workaround, but not a
>> solution. the soultion would be native codecs.
>> and dont tell me to rev.eng. every single dll, because it's also not
>> a solution...
>
> I'm not yet sure whether lgpl is the right thing for this.
> Comercial companies who care about contributing back will do so even
> if we use gpl, but those who keep everything for themself will not
> even if we use lgpl.
> You said on irc taht you dont care about user, may they be private or
> comercial, but you care about comercial developers. I'm really not
> sure whether an lgpl player framework will gain us any comercial
> devels as they will be paid on working on the companies code which has
> to make money and which is mostelikely the closed source part which
> they dont want to publish for some obscure reason.
> I also dont see how closed source codecs will help us, as currently
> the way with the dlls works quite well (yes, i know it's not
> optimal). And for the other part, i only see vo/ao modules as a place
> where closed source would make sense (for special hw), but those
> companies should rather make their code gpl instead as they make money
> from selling the hardware and support, not from the software.
> But i cannot say for sure what will happen as my cristal
> ball is currently in repair.

IMO better idea would be to keep mplayer g2 gpl and create simple wrapper
layer around it as LGPL.
This would, to my understanding, keep everyone pretty happy. :)

If mplayer goes LGPL we will be discussing moving mplayer back to GPL after
few years and you know it.

I see no reason why would they need to get mplayer fully under LGPL.

>> btw i wonder why m$ didnt notice this empty space, ie. the lack of a
>> video framework uner unix, they could port their dshow/dmo api and
>> let the companies port their codecs to it. so they could get monopol
>> status over a free os when it comes to video playback :)
>
> Simply to keep linux an unusable platform and thus binding normal
> users to windows. But nowadays it has changed. If you'd know how many
> problems the dshow/vfw framework creates for playback and how many
> people on windows are using mplayer and vlc because they dont use it
> and thus simply work, you'd be surprised.
> IMHO m$ lost the video battle already, even on windows.
> IMHO we should now go on and force them to use our, fully free
> formats. (fully free as in rms compatible, as they cannot embrace and
> conquer it)

Damn straight.

> 			Attila Kinali

Aapo Tahkola