Re: Legal issues: would companies really pay?

Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> Then a second company comes along and instead of licensing from
> mplayer, it licenses from the company who licensed from mplayer, for
> 90% of the price and with bugfixes.
As Richard said, this is nonsense.


>     And you should know (I know you know) that main reason for mplayer
> success is being FREE, being OPEN [FOREVER], being GPL.
Not true, MPlayer was already the most successful media player while it
wasn't even GPL (although marillat lied it as being so;).
People use MPlayer plainly because it's so fucking good.


> Maybe if you were BSD, many users wouldn't send you code, collaborating to
> other project instead.
BSD was just Arpi's bad wording, it'd definitely need much improvements to
fit our needs. Don't think of it as "plain" BSDL.


> give it to them? So what, they will put more bad things in the world so
> then you will reverse-engineer the whole thing to be able to play it?
Then again, what could they add to make harm? Who cares about DRM or pay/view?
Those things will fall eventually and I haven't heard any more arguments.

-- 
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

iD8DBQFAPHYoAq6GhkS0XDcRAlkOAJ95wUt32z8Eyha4VX4v+LVxY1GwQwCeN9Qj
nCU5ao4Qsl19QfGJ6C7/5Hg=
=IteB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----