No subject

       NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
     services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
     of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
     Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
     Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
     kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

> > > 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.
> If you want to compete with m$ (so you want your program to be used not only
> by die hard hackers) you must protect yourself ...

There are OTHER licences out there that don't exclusivly use GPL that 
are used by 'competitors of m$'.  See mozilla, XFree, openoffice....
 
> > > > 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.
> Why?

because the license says so?

> And then what about GNU kernel (Hurd). IMHO when FSF planed to make
> a system with utilities, kernel, compilers, ... for the world they knew
> what they done ... GNU would have been a complete OS with own kernel (Hurd),
> and other stuffs (like gcc, and many common GNU stuffs nowdays). And IMHO
> they created GPL to be flexible enough to be able to run even non-free
> softwares under their GNU. And GNU's kernel (Hurd) is GPL.

READ the GPL.  Your HO is WRONG.  In a completely GPLed system, you *CANNOT*
run *ANY* propriatary software.  PERIOD.  The propriatary program CANNOT link
against a GPLed (not LGPLed) system library, nor could the kernel call the
the user program.  The reason why LGPL *exists* is because this problem with
propriatary software.   

> > 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.
> And it's good. This point of GPL is for avoding stolen GPL code by others.
> Of course this means you can't use non-GPL source parts in your GPL project
> either.

without an exemption, anyway.  Remember that mplayer is highly aided
by the win32 codecs.
 
> I thing mplayer wouldn't have got problems to be fully GPL project.
> At source level AFAIK only opendivx part is used which is non-GPL.
> Correct me, if there're others ...

the win32 binaries.

> Loading binary objects runtime is not a GPL issue ... 

you are wrong.

> Maybe you can't distribute DLLs and others together with
> mplayer, but you can release GPL mplayer source and binaries, and separated
> codec packages. For example.

This *may* slide under, but at best case, it would be very grey.
 
> But we SHOULD choose a license now! MPlayer's codebase comtains many GPL
> parts ... So if we decide mplayer not to be GPL, we should rewrite all
> GPL parts or search other libs whose licenses are good enough for us.

or get an exemption for those GPLed libraries that are used.

> But now, we breaks both of GPL and OpenDivX licenses imho, and other things.
> And the worst: we couldn't say what type of license mplayer has!!!!!!!
> At once, mplayer's homepage says it's GPL ... So we must DECIDE. Now ....

sage advice.  If you want to push the FSF agenda, GPL it and provide
exemptions.  If you want a more open license, look at the BSD license, or 
a multi licence like mozilla or openoffice.

-r