Re: dual licensing try 2

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:06:45PM +0100, Attila Kinali wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:06:57 -0600
> Joey Parrish <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > 3) LGPL only
> > 
> > What's wrong with 3?
> 
> Not possible as MPlayer makes use of GPL code.

The original MPlayer code could still be LGPL; when combined they're
then under GPL. But IMO it shouldn't be. LGPL is only appropriate for
(a) making free replacements for an already-existing non-free api, or
(b) encouraging adoption of an open standard (but BSD is often more
strategic for this).

And before Arpi or someone brings up the G2 demuxer/stream system as
an open standard we're trying to get adopted, let me say this is
nonsense. This is an internal mechanism, and we have no reason to care
what internal mechanism or API proprietary software uses. On the other
hand, I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a BSD-licensed
implementation of NUT, because (a) it's simple, and (b) we want
everyone to adopt NUT and abandon the current horrible container
formats. BUT G2 is not a file format or codec or anything that needs
to be standardized between players. The ONLY party that benefits when
a proprietary program includes the MPlayer G2 core is the information
hoarder stealing concepts away from the public in the form of
exclusive pseudo-rights.

Rich