[MPlayer-G2-dev] dual licensing

[Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri]

 --- Arpi <arpi at thot.banki.hu> escreveu: 
> Hi,
> 
> I know some of you refuse such things by reflex, including me.
> But we should consider it in case of g2, at least for the
> core code and stream/demuxer layer (at least for main formats).
> 
> Why?
> 
> There are many companies using mplayer g1 in closed products.
> Either by stealing it silently (KiSS etc) or by calling it via
> the slavemode interface so not hurting the gpl.
> The rest of them just wants to use g1, but for some reason
> they can't accept gpl, and we can't accept non-gpl, so they
> don't use it (or fallback to stealing code).
> Some of them would even sponsor or pay mplayer team/developers
> for implementing custom features for them.
> (some actually do, who accept the custom changes to be released)
> 
> As G2 is planned to be *the* media api (!= CWJ's media-api)
> in a few years, we should provide a way to limited users to use
> the core legally. They can choose, between free (as beer) under
> gpl, or for money under a bsd-like license (which allows them
> to link into closed source code).
> Even if we refuse this way, only we loose. Why? They will either
> - steal code, for free, ignoring gpl
> - use other 'products', like libavifile, media-api, gstreamer etc.
>   which (may) allow other licensing form for us
> 
> I have no experience in such licensing/legal mess, but what I
> plan to reach:
> - free use under GPL, _or_
> - use with a paid custom license, something similar to BSD one
>   (allows linking to closed src products, but keep credits)
> 
> We don't have to dual-license all of the g2 code/files.
> only the core library files (including special modules, like
> vo_null, vf_vo2) and some of the basic plugins
> (like demux_avi, demux_mpeg, vf_scale, vf_expand etc)
> mostly required for any use.
> 
> 
> A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team
> 

Hi Arpi,

Could you consider L-GPL? Since you want the core (library) to be used
everywhere, it's a better approach.
   I agree with you about preventing code stealing, I also hate that,
but puting the code in such liberal license (BSD) is too much, it will
be no different from code stealing, aside it will carry your name in
some piece of paper no one will ever read.
   Using LGPL you enforce the core remains open and that changes to it
to be back to community.
   Another problem I see is having every developer who contributed code
to accept the new license. I know you mean just the core, filters and
stuff could have their own; the core is being rewritten but how you
will deal with future contributions? You will force people to write BSD
code?  It's a difficult stuff.
   GPL -> LGPL is not that hard to convince, since the code you wrote
will remain open and under that license... some may not agree to
contribute since they don't want to help who don't want to cooperate
bi-directionally (I respect these RMS-like people).
   GPL -> BSD is much more difficult.

   And whatever you do, please add the license to EVERY file (even .h),
so if people submit changes to that file, they will be in agreement
with that license.

   I hope you won't choose BSD... today we can fight suckers like KISS,
using BSD we won't.

Gustavo

______________________________________________________________________

Yahoo! Mail - O melhor e-mail do Brasil! Abra sua conta agora:
http://br.yahoo.com/info/mail.html