[MPlayer-G2-dev] dual licensing try 2

[Gabucino]

D Richard Felker III wrote:
> > Dual-licensing money would be available for every developer - if they (you)
> > refuse accepting it due to religious RMS-Rulez-Free-Like-Beer/Whatever reasons,
> > that is entirely your problem.
> Actually it's your problem when they decide not to code, or to code
> their own player instead.
That stuff happens quite often either way. And there are not too many
really active developers whose code is everywhere.


> > We already do. The only way we won't help them is closing the source
> > entirely.
> Now you're being a complete idiot. WAAAH WAAAAAH THEY STOLE R CODE NOW
> WE NOT DEVELOP ANYMORE AND U ALL LOOZE ROTFL!!!
Calm down, this is just a fact, and a discussion. Not the way to go, that's
acknowledged.


> movie player that works. As soon as you stop this for whatever petty
> reason, YOU LOSE and "THEY" WIN (they being the proprietary lamers).
I don't see the world in black and white.


> (b) taking legal action against anyone who uses MPlayer code for
> proprietary purposes
Gosh, Richard, legal action doesn't "just happen" by the Fellow OSS Community!
Who is going to support it? You? No offense but you're a Free Software guy, who
can't stand the air of a courtroom, so I guess the answer is no.


> When developing free software, the goal is making good free software, and
> making sure it's better than the proprietary junk. Not boosting your ego or
> getting paid.
And another goal is not letting "them" steal your work easily. GPL doesn't
protect against that no matter what RMS says, unless you have big bucks to back
it up.

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-g2-dev/attachments/20040223/9cf50064/attachment.pgp>