[MPlayer-G2-dev] dual licensing try 2

[florian dietrich]

 --- D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> 
> > Let's try to evaluate what companies might want from such an
> > architecture then.
> 
> No, let's not. It's not our job to satisfy commercial software
> vendors, and I want no part in doing so.

Well, I don't think we should either. Still, why not try to imagine
what they might want and what they might do with it when they get it.

Maybe it'll be more clear what I was trying to say with this little
example: It doesn't hurt Linux, if commercial programs use it. On the
contrary, the more programs use it, the harder it will be not to use
it if you want a certain program, so that strengthens the project.
They might even contribute back, so there's more and better features,
so more people use their programs.
But on the other hand, if you hand Linux to a commercial company, who
knows what's going to happen? If IBM (random example) had bought
Linux  (and saved a lot of work that way) and then put all their
improvements into that ("99% compatible, you only need to
recompile!", better and faster), sure some people would buy it, and
more people would use "Linux". But would that strengthen the position
of the original Linux? I think not.
So in my opinion, building on top of mplayer is fine for everyone,
but allowing them to own it might not be such a good idea at all.

> This is nonsense. They will never (and should never!) write MPlayer
> codec modules. They should just make a decent shared lib, which
> someone else wraps for MPlayer.

Hmm, I don't think it's *such* a big difference, except it might save
some work. Of course it sucks, when you realize that you want to
change the interface... maybe the best solution is to make them have
to supply GPL'd wrapper code or offer to write that for money :-)

> > If someone wants to use codecs and filters written for mplayer
> G2,
> 
> Then their entire application needs to be GPL. Dynamic loading GPL
> modules does NOT exempt you from having to follow the conditions of
> the GPL if you intend to distribute or prepare derivative works of
> the GPL'd program.

Hmm, doesn't that depend though? Can't they use 'open interfaces' if
they are offered? Anyhow, like I said, I was just trying to think
through what might become possible in which cases. Leaving the
decisions to those who actually have the power (and would have to
live with the consequences like everyone else) :-)

Florian


	
		
Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de