Re: MTP extensions

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, Richard Low wrote:

> On the licensing side, I've read the agreements and am more or less certain 
> that we are allowed to implement and distribute an MTP library under any 
> licence we want.

Great...

> So all my stuff will be released under the GPL (which 
> it must as it's using libptp which is GPL).

We would prefer to keep libnjb BSD-licensed so we must be careful on 
linking here. Myself I don't mind making libnjb GPL but it may be 
problematic to some people.

Also I didn't quite get it if your implementation was, say "inside" of 
libptp2 (a patched libptp2) or "on top" of libptp2 so it'd be 
stand-alone, something like libmtp on top of libptp2...

libnjb could possibly return something like "this is an MTP device" and 
then the client would switch over to using libptp2. Or, libnjb can just 
ignore the MTP devices (as it does now) and all that stuff be kept inside 
the libptp2/glue layer.

> So I think the only remaining question on this front is about the enhanced 
> MTP spec.  The licence gives an email address to ask about this.

Why not ask? If the answer is "no" for GPL:ed drivers, we'll 
reverse-engineer it. (I'm getting myself an MTP device ASAP.)

> Technically, and more interestingly, I have implemented and tested to varying 
> degrees pretty much all that is needed for a bare bones implementation:
>
> Track & file upload/download
> Setting/retrieving tag info
> Playlists
> Player info

That rules...! What kinds of device info? Battery stats and FW versions 
too?

Linus


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click