MPlayer-G2-dev

Download

mplayer-g2-dev@mplayerhq.hu

September 2004

3 participants
2 discussions

the awakening, license changes and so on...
by Arpi 02 May '07

02 May '07

Hi, I'LL BE BACK: Some of you already know from irc, i'm planning to continue work ok mplayer g2 core from september. I left g2 because of the license conflict: i don't like gpl, especially for the g2 core, and no, i did not change my option, but the license :) NEW LICENSE: So i plan to change g2 core license to lgpl. So no dual licensing, no commercial licensing and such mess. LGPL should be better for a (set of) library(es) anyway, and it let commercial users to link it with their optionally closedsource UIs, drivers etc. We won't get money directly (opposed to original dual licensing plan), but as iive said, nobody wants money, so it should not be problem. :) Although it can be expected that some commercial users (think of settopbox, divx player etc makers) will sponsor some of you to do custom development for them. I'm personally not interested much in these, but i was asked by several companies in the past year (including some quite big ones), so i know there is such interest. WHY NOT GPL? GPL is just too limited for the purpose of g2 core. Even Michael and Alex agreed on irc. We need some license which allows at least linking to plugins and UIs under different (even closed source) license. Why? Think of a 3rd party company developing codecs (like 3ivx, On2 etc) they want to make their codecs available for linux (and other unix) platforms natively (no DLL hack), but they cannot open the source, or they can but they dont want to put it under GPL. The second reason is commercial users, ie settopbox makers etc. I was contacted by several companies in the past, with very different targets of use. It ranges from driving 16000x4000 pixel giant displays (using industrial 16-head vga cards), to driving 3-d hologram projectors, or to be used in advertisement display kiosks in 24/7 for months without a reboot/restart. They all need very stable linux-based player core. And they all need less restrictive (than gpl) license. Since these applications are far from as-is use, they usually need custom plugins, uis, and they are willing to sponsor us to do that. (note to Rich and friends: sponsoring not only means money, it may mean added code/patches, hardware to developers, new server and so on) LICENSE CHANGE: the code released in g2 peview47 is mostly under gpl. it means we need to change license, with the agreement of authors. so, if you are author of some code in g2, and you disagree with the lgpl, tell us asap, so we can replace your code. note, that most of the code in g2 core is written by me, or being copied/inherited from g1. about plugins/filters: i want the basic ones (like swscaler, crop/expand, libavcodec, vo_x11 etc) be lgpl too, so they can be included in core. The rest (like Rich's filters) may be external gpl plugins, unless their authors accepts lgpl. MY PLANS: the first goal is to stabilize/finalize all core APIs. most of them are OK already, maybe needs some fixes or reviews, and documentation. in details: VO: the x11_helper stuff needs to be designed better, Beastd and Faust3 promised some help me, and Koth too in the past. the driver api (buffer allocation, display etc) stuff is ok imho. also we should check how to handle "coupled drivers", like x11+vidix, x11+mga, fbdev+tdfx, vesa+vidix etc. either the parent driver can handle it, or the vf_vo wrapper can. both has advs and disadvs. AO: the g1's libao2 should be ok, with changes to use module_t and do not use globals. AF: it is not done yet at all, i have some plans but need time to implement. anyway AF layer can wait, it is not so important. VF: i plan to use my code from pre47, and don't wait for Rich's vaporware. and as Rich will probably refuse LGPL anyway, it should not be a problem :) OSD: i've made some drafts and code, have to check it again. DEMUX: should be ok, except that i want to implement framer API, to handle raw formats like mp3 or mpeg-ps. VD: should be ok, except the changes required for framer api AD: depends on AF CONFIG: layers 0,1 are (almost) ready, layer 2 should be implemented So, as you already could see, i don't count with Iive's and Rich's work on vo and vf layers. If they have complete, implemented solutions, i'll check, but i wont wait for them forever and keep reading the utopistic drafts with mixing multiple video streams etc. I guess they should work on g3 instead :) The goal for g2 is still the same: make it usable as soon as possible. In short: no new from-scratch overcomplicated apis, and try to keep some backward compatibility with g1, so plugins can be ported easily. Think g2 is a cleaned up, extended g1, and not a new player/editor with ultimate features. i expect big flames about this, but please keep it short :) A'rpi / MPlayer, Astral & ESP-team -- MPlayer's new image: happiness & peace & cosmetics & vmiklos

17 38

Re: [MPlayer-G2-dev] the awakening, license changes and so on...
by Arpi 22 Sep '04

22 Sep '04

Hi, > Arpi writes: > > > > I'LL BE BACK: > > Who are you? Sorry, I don't remember my name. Yesterday i wrote it down to a paper, but i dont remember where that paper is... > Terminator 4 - Return of the Coders > > Hasta la vista bits! > > ;-) > > OK, enough cheesy jokes for today, SCNR. thanks :) > > Some of you already know from irc, i'm planning to continue work > > ok mplayer g2 core from september. I left g2 because of the license > > conflict: i don't like gpl, especially for the g2 core, and no, i > > did not change my option, but the license :) > > The main question, though, is: Which license will attract the highest > number of (quality) developers in the long run. You won't be > developing it alone after all. > > IMNSHO there is a clear preference among developers: > > BSD < LGPL < GPL > > Just so there is no misunderstanding: Of course there are BSD devs and > people who prefer BSD over the others (same for LGPL), but if you make > statistics you will come up with the above relationship. This may not > be the case for proprietary software developers and their bosses, but > it surely is the case for free software (open source whatever you want > to call it) developers. Just compare the amount of development done > on MPlayer by the former and the latter. I doubt we will see this > change. I cannot agree here. First of all, do a quick search for libraries on freshmeat, and re-count licenses. I have a bet that lgpl will win it. Probably you didnt realized yet that g2 is more like a library framework, than a standalone player app (like g1). Also. I think that quailty developers don't really care of the license, they care more of the use of their work, ie if it can be used for more thing it's better. mplayer g1 was not gpl for the first 2 years, and it was developed imho more quickly (by less people but they worked a lot on it, not just contributing 1-2 small patches) than in teh past 2 years. So, maybe you're right that gpl app will get more small contributors, but it's not true that more ppl will work fulltime (or at least as their primary project for longer time period) on it if it's gpl. It's the reverse imho. Also, you may say that GPL will protect us from the evil, from stealing. Hey, where did you sleep in the past 4 years then? mplayer was stolen by many projects and companies, we don't even know about most of them. we know a few, but couldnt really do anything against them, think of warpvision, xbox mp or the latest kiss issues. Ok i know you're working on kiss problem, but i dont expect much from it. I also know that LGPL still won't protect us, but as it gives more freedom to users, they will more likely support us, instead of silently stealing the code. Or i'm just idealist, just like all you GPL fans, just a bit different way ;) I think that widely used code is more important goal, than an 100% rms-compatible freedom. > > NEW LICENSE: > > So i plan to change g2 core license to lgpl. > > So no dual licensing, no commercial licensing and such mess. > > LGPL should be better for a (set of) library(es) anyway, and > > it let commercial users to link it with their optionally > > closedsource UIs, drivers etc. > > We won't get money directly (opposed to original dual licensing plan), > > but as iive said, nobody wants money, so it should not be problem. :) > > I much prefer dual licensing to LGPL (and I was not against dual > licensing). > > IMO this is the worst of both worlds. We don't get the funds that > might come in through dual licensing and we don't have the protection > and patch feedback offered through the GPL. probably time to read lgpl then. it still guarantees the patch feedback, just like gpl, thge only difference to gpl is that lgpl allows code linking to non-gpl apps. i also liked dual licensing, but i gave up on it for 2 reasons: - everyone refused it - selling license is a very big problem, needs a company, needs solving patent issues (patent holders can sue a company) - how to share the money between the developers? now the code will be lgpl, and if a company needs a feature, they can choose and hire a developer to do the modifications or (help to) implement the wanted plugin for them. and dont say it's dream, i do know several companies willing to do so. and it's not secret: i think that a big part of g2 plugins will be implemented by developers sponsored by these companies note, that the case of g1 was simpler, it was the first usable player, the first player supporting filters etc. so most opensource developers made trheir code to g1. but in case of g2, there is no such priority. if we want ppl to work on g2, we need to pay them, or work for years until g2 gets to a state where it's better than g1. i realized that nearly no one was interested in g2 development, even while it was gpl. and i cannot do all of it alone... > > Although it can be expected that some commercial users (think of > > settopbox, divx player etc makers) will sponsor some of you to do > > custom development for them. I'm personally not interested much in > > these, but i was asked by several companies in the past year > > (including some quite big ones), so i know there is such interest. > > We've heard many rumours about that, but no backing at all. Is it a > secret? Did you sign some sort of NDA? no, i dont sign such things. actually i dont sign anything :) anyway i'm not sure if i'm allowed to tell you, as they all asked me in private, but for a quick list: ESS-net (makers of lottery terminals over europe, inetesred in g2 core for their nextgen firmware), Antenna Hungaria (for their dvb receiver settopbox), some slovakian cable tv (i dont know their name) for their video conversion/archival purposes, dream media (advertisement projector boxes) and so on. believe me, it's not fake. > I just don't believe in companies adopting LGPL MPlayer and i dont care if you believe or not. as you are not a g2 developer, are you? > contributing back useful things. The companies that want LGPL MPlayer > are the ones not interested in contributing back. Why should we be it's not a question of interest. they have to contribute back if they change core. and if they make closedsrc plugins, we can still use them. > interested in them or make life easier for them? because of they can do (or pay someone to do) many things for us, speeding up the development and reducing new-codec support time. > > WHY NOT GPL? > > GPL is just too limited for the purpose of g2 core. Even Michael and > > Alex agreed on irc. We need some license which allows at least linking > > to plugins and UIs under different (even closed source) license. > > Why? Think of a 3rd party company developing codecs (like 3ivx, On2 etc) > > they want to make their codecs available for linux (and other unix) > > platforms natively (no DLL hack), but they cannot open the source, > > or they can but they dont want to put it under GPL. > > What license would they put it under? BSD? Surely not.. dunno > > The second reason is commercial users, ie settopbox makers etc. > > I was contacted by several companies in the past, with very different > > targets of use. It ranges from driving 16000x4000 pixel giant displays > > (using industrial 16-head vga cards), to driving 3-d hologram projectors, > > or to be used in advertisement display kiosks in 24/7 for months without > > a reboot/restart. They all need very stable linux-based player core. > > And they all need less restrictive (than gpl) license. > > Why would you need such a thing to drive such a kiosk? What's the > difference between a video and a browser kiosk? I have seen browser > kiosks running Linux + Mozilla. I mean why would they need a > different license? because of using special hardware which needs nda, or non-gpl libraries? because of using their special player ui designed for that kiosk, which they dont want to release under gpl? (becase then its bugs could be find easier and the kiosks could be cracked?) > Again, please put your money where your mouth is, so to say, and tell > us which company offered what. I dont know the company name, just a contact person i was asked by. i can give his address & phone to you in private if you are interested. > We have been talking to companies at LinuxTag that wanted to sponsor > GPL MPlayer and even G2 development. It's not true that you cannot > get corporate backing with the GPL. which companies? put your hand where your mounth is, or tell us facts. > The city of Münster wants to become the most wired city in the world > (they have fiber all over already) and offer high performance WLAN and > content streaming for its citizens. They want to build all the > infrastructure on free software and release everything they create as > GPL. They were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the > streaming solution. and why would they sponsor us? > Then there was another company that wants to sponsor G2 development as > a backend for a VJ (video jockey) application. I forgot their name > and apparently lost their damn business card, but Alex should have it. and their VJ app would be also GPL ? i really doubt it. and if it wont be GPL, then either they cant link GPL g2 libs, or they will call g2 cli as child process which plain sucks and so they wont. > > Since these applications are far from as-is use, they usually need > > custom plugins, uis, and they are willing to sponsor us to do that. > > (note to Rich and friends: sponsoring not only means money, it may mean > > added code/patches, hardware to developers, new server and so on) > > Please explain in more detail why and how company X would benefit from > an LGPL G2 and - more importantly - how WE (the developers and the > whole community) would benefit from providing such a thing. Obviously > all of us love giving away their work, but not under any condition. > In your model, what is the difference to free labor? Why are you > interested in making things easy for companies that are not interested > in contributing back? how many times you'll ask this again? i've explained already many times. anyway you'd better getting Michael against lgpl, or i'll end up forking and making the whole g2 stuff alone, together with ppl sponsored by these "secret" companies. but it will be closedsource then :))) so, again, and last time: if i would know that many ppl interested in gpl g2 development, i would not care. but it seems almost no one is interested, so i increase the interest by changing the license. even if you think gpl is more popular, it isnt. also, if you do simple math: lgpl allows linking to gpl and other license apps, gpl allows linking to gpl only. it alone means much more users of lgpl libraries. and more users mean more developers too. > > LICENSE CHANGE: > > the code released in g2 peview47 is mostly under gpl. it means > > we need to change license, with the agreement of authors. so, > > if you are author of some code in g2, and you disagree with the > > lgpl, tell us asap, so we can replace your code. > > note, that most of the code in g2 core is written by me, or being > > copied/inherited from g1. > > Since G1 has been written by so many people I think it will be > extremely hard to change its license and even to rid G2 of G1 code. we'll see. also, you know that i personally dont give a shit to the licenses. i was developing g1 without any license for years. and it worked, it was contriuted, and it was used by many people. i'm ready to start doing things as it's lgpl, an dif somebody comes with his complaints then we'll replace his code. simple, eh? anyway already many ppl answered that they all agree with lgpl. nobody rejected it yet. and i cant see any reason to reject it, unless you're gpl/rms fanatic. > > VF: i plan to use my code from pre47, and don't wait for Rich's > > vaporware. and as Rich will probably refuse LGPL anyway, > > it should not be a problem :) > > >From talking to Rich I know that he is opposed to LGPL. > > > i expect big flames about this, but please keep it short :) > > I tried my very best. you're slowly improving... > BTW, I sincerely do not intend to start a huge flamewar, I just don't > understand your motivation and cannot understand your reasoning. sorry, i cannot understand your inability to understand it :) A'rpi / MPlayer, Astral & ESP-team -- MPlayer's new image: happiness & peace & cosmetics & vmiklos

5 9