[MPlayer-users] What is it: http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/homepage/

[Roger Fujii]

Arpi <arpi at thot.banki.hu> wrote:
] Tom Mraz <t8m at centrum.cz> wrote
> > If you think that GPL SUX maybe you should stop using Linux because if it
> > wasn't GPLed it wouldn't be so developed as it is now.

oh?  Tell this to the BSD people.

> > It's good sources
> > would be already stolen by every company which now develops on it and gives
> > the source back to community because they have to. There could be probably
> > tens of proprietary distributions without source codes and so on.

as opposed to the tens of non-proprietary distributions that exist today...

> > And in conclusion Linux wouldn't be so highly developed. GPL is the best opensource
> > license because it forbids to steal the code from the community.
> 
> I didn't talked about stealing code. My problem with GPL is that it doens't
> allow using non-GPL code (including binaries) in GPL program.

Yes.  This is the fatal flaw with the GPL.  The GNuts who hasn't read the
GPL do not realize that:
  1) The only reason why ANY propriatary drivers (like video..) can be linked with
     the linux kernel is because Linus made a specific exemption for this case.
  2) GPL programs cannot legally use propriatary software.  So, this makes GPLed
     java programs that cannot be legally run with the SUN jvm, or in this case,
     a strict GPLed mplayer cannot legally use any nonGPLed win32 dlls.

> It has nothing about code stealing. It should allow using binary code for
> GPL program, but shouldn't allow using GPL for non-GPL (closedsource) stuff.

'binary' is such a loose term nowadays.   All modifications to GPLed code should
be GPLed, stuff that is separate should be allowed to coexist.
 
> There are lots of projects suffers from this limitation, and have to use
> much worse gpl implementations than better but non-gpl libs/codes.
> Forcing GPL this way is like M$ strategy...
> "use GPL or die"

yup... it has a tendency to promote inferior/mediocre stuff.
 
> > And about the problem you've had with the nonGPL code in the kernel. I don't
> > think it's impossible to compile nonGPL code into the kernel (maybe with
> > some hacking) or you can make initrd and let the proprietary code be in the
> > module when you're booting.
> yes i know. but i'm not a kernel hacker, i can't do it, and other people
> using the drivers can't do it. initrd is an option but not the best.

it would be impossible in a strict GPLed kernel.

Arnd Marijnissen <grimm at cistron.nl> wrote:
> 
> The nice thing about the GPL, in this respect is that nobody is _forcing_
> you to use GPL'ed code. 

MYTH.  GPL FORCES you to use GPLed components.  You cannot pick and choose
with GPL - it's all or nothing.

> There's tons of other software out there and if
> you cant find what you need, you can _always_ start from scratch and build
> a project under your own favorite license.

sounds like bill gates.  Windows has competition...  Someone can come
right along and build another windows.

> It also avoids the situation of people feeling they did "everything for
> nothing" when some commercial company decides to integrate a large Open
> Source project into their own projects and choose to not give anything
> back (no appreciation, no mention in the credits, no bug-fixes of
> improvements) to the people who put their effort into the original project
> in the first place.

this can be accomplished without the virulent aspects....
 
> GPL'ed code does _not_ forbid you using binary-only DLL's or other non-gpl
> stuff in conjunction, though, as long as you provide a clear enough
> abstraction between what's under the GPL and what isnt (build "*.so"'s
> out of them.. for example).

This is *orseshi*.  READ it carefully.  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
or more specifically:  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

> In other words... if you want to write software based on the GPL, you've
> _consciously_ made the choice to release any works based on it under the
> GPL aswell. If you dont want that, dont use GPL'ed code!.. Write your
> own!.. Start fresh!.. Nobody's twisting your arm, you know ? ;)

OK... throw away all the win32 DLLs.  Don't use it with mplayer. 
Start fresh....  write all the codecs.  No one is twisting your arm to use them...


Sven Hartge <hartge at ds9.argh.org> wrote:
> Um 13:35 Uhr am 09.11.01 schrieb Arpi:
> > There are lots of projects suffers from this limitation, and have to use
> > much worse gpl implementations than better but non-gpl libs/codes.
> > Forcing GPL this way is like M$ strategy...
> > "use GPL or die"
> 
> I really don't know, but did you check the LGPL or BSD-License types?
> Maybe the Artistic License (which XFree86 uses IIRC) may suite your/our
> needs.

There are many...  One's to look at are the ones used by LARGE projects
like mozilla, xfree, bsd, openoffice.  Seems like the in thing is to use
a multi-license scheme....

-r