Re: dual licensing

D Richard Felker III wrote:
> > they will pay big bucks to us for using our code.
> And everyone in the world loses freedom.
AFAIK MPlayer was never a 'freedom' project.. I like free code, but I also like
OpenVMS just as much. But I don't really like freedom-at-all-cost viewpoint
(RMS, etc).


> Getting big bucks is not the purpose.
But you need big bucks to fight for freedom (i.e. court).


> If we go to court, we get the _real_ compensation we deserve: freedom
> of the code.
Assuming we win... Don't focus on Freedom, see the difficulties too. And,
as I said, court needs money.


> AFAIK Fabrice does this under the terms of the LGPL. This is very
> different.
Read QuickView's license (including - and especially - the Indeo part).


> one is going to be very simple. If there's going to be ANY proprietary
> licensing of mplayer code, I'm off the project, forever.
I admire you being frank. We'll see what is going to happen at the end
of this thread.

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team

_______________________________________________
MPlayer-G2-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-g2-dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD4DBQFAOPMWAq6GhkS0XDcRAjKRAJi/Z4PBAsRvhrwNXL/iyCmytMRHAKCNeNom
9DMq/oBjbkRIezLO8TOF7Q==
=BbUm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----