[MPlayer-G2-dev] dual licensing

[Attila Kinali]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:23:19 +0100 (CET)
Arpi <arpi at thot.banki.hu> wrote:


> Rich: you misunderstood my mail. read it again please.
> i do NOT want it to be under the BSD license.
> I proposed something to dual-license it under GPL (or LGPL) and
> a commercial license, which allows the license buyer similar things
> like the BSD one (compile into closedsrc code, preserve credits)
> 
> The key point here is that they cannot use that bsd-like thing for free,
> they have to buy it, for lots of money. Ie they dont steal your code, they
> buy it. (it's the next topic, to how to handle the money. we clearly need
> a company for that, and what to do with the money: share between
> developers, buy hw for developers, buy hw for server etc...)

Hmm... This makes things a bit complicated.
Ie we'll need, as Kis Gergely suggested, a company or rather
a small foundation to handle that.
What i dont like about this idea is, that we'll get quite
an amount of legal stuff to handle which takes a lot of time.


> > And if we choose a dual license, we should apply it to the whole
> > projcet, not just parts of it. Otherwise we'll end up in a
> > license hell where nobody knows what may be used and what not.
> 
> it cannot be done. we won't be able to get Michael to dual-license
> his code, or get libmpeg2 to do so.
> it will be even problematic to get swscaler under such license, which
> is required for g2 to work...

That was what i meant with the problems of dual licensing.
 
> so we can keep the core and required plugins under dual license,
> and let optional parts, codecs, libs, plugins to be gpl only.
> plugins can even be under incompatible license (think of 3rd
> party binary codecs, like the 3ivx ones for xanim/openqt).

Remember that discussion about whether we may legaly use
dlls together with mplayer ?


			Attila Kinali

-- 
egp ist vergleichbar mit einem ikea bausatz fuer flugzeugtraeger
			-- reeler in +kaosu