Re: dual licensing

 --- D Richard Felker III <[email protected]> escreveu: 
> 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

   I beg to agree to Rich. This complements what I said in my other
email - no BSD, PLEASE!

Gustavo


______________________________________________________________________

Yahoo! Mail - O melhor e-mail do Brasil! Abra sua conta agora:
http://br.yahoo.com/info/mail.html