Re: dual licensing try 2

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:56:01PM +0800, Anders Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am against dual licensing as well, and will not let af become
> non-GPL, I could however consider LGPL.

I hate to start a disagreement between the anti-dual-license people,
but FYI libaf is slated for replacement/removal in G2...

> If you want to earn money from MPlayer try to sell the service of
> adopting MPlayer to a specific platform instead of trying to sell the
> code itself.

I agree totally, but I don't think the goal was to make money. Rather
the goal was to try to get "something" rather than "nothing" from the
lamers already stealing mplayer code. But IMO this is selling out and
won't work anyway.

> If you really want to be able to interface mplayer to
> closed source stuff - then just make every module dynamically
> loadable (that's what I have done in my professional work).

Dynamically loading GPL code does not get around the GPL. If your
proprietary program is using the GPL code, it must be fully GPL or (a
technicality here) you must refrain from distributing the GPL'd code
AT ALL (since you have forfeited your rights under the GPL by not
releasing your program under the GPL).

Rich