Re: dual licensing

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 11:57:11PM +0100, Arpi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I know some of you refuse such things by reflex, including me.
> But we should consider it in case of g2, at least for the
> core code and stream/demuxer layer (at least for main formats).

I disagree strongly.

> Why?
> 
> There are many companies using mplayer g1 in closed products.
> Either by stealing it silently (KiSS etc) or by calling it via
> the slavemode interface so not hurting the gpl.
> The rest of them just wants to use g1, but for some reason
> they can't accept gpl, and we can't accept non-gpl, so they
> don't use it (or fallback to stealing code).
> Some of them would even sponsor or pay mplayer team/developers
> for implementing custom features for them.
> (some actually do, who accept the custom changes to be released)
> 
> As G2 is planned to be *the* media api (!= CWJ's media-api)
> in a few years, we should provide a way to limited users to use
> the core legally. They can choose, between free (as beer) under

Why? Why should they even exist?? Why should we help them make money
by witholding code???????

> gpl, or for money under a bsd-like license (which allows them
> to link into closed source code).
> Even if we refuse this way, only we loose. Why? They will either

We don't lose when these things happen. _THEY_ lose. Here's why:

> - steal code, for free, ignoring gpl

If they steal code, at the very least they'll have their name dragged
through the mud and anyone respecting free software will know not to
buy from them. At best, one of more MPlayer developers sues their
asses off.

> - use other 'products', like libavifile, media-api, gstreamer etc.
>   which (may) allow other licensing form for us

If they use other systems, then their products will suck. Which means
MPlayer will be much better than them. They lose, we win. This is the
whole point of GPL.

> I have no experience in such licensing/legal mess, but what I
> plan to reach:
> - free use under GPL, _or_
> - use with a paid custom license, something similar to BSD one
>   (allows linking to closed src products, but keep credits)

BSD is absolutely totally unacceptable. I couldn't care less about
credit. The only purpose of a free software license (as opposed to
public domain) is to ensure that the code STAYS free. LGPL is open to
discussion, but IMO it sucks too.

> We don't have to dual-license all of the g2 code/files.
> only the core library files (including special modules, like
> vo_null, vf_vo2) and some of the basic plugins
> (like demux_avi, demux_mpeg, vf_scale, vf_expand etc)
> mostly required for any use.

This is still way too much. Proprietary lamers deserve NOTHING.

Rich