Re: the awakening, license changes and so on...

Arpi writes:
>=20
> > Arpi writes:
> > >=20
> > > I'LL BE BACK:
> >=20
> > Who are you=3F
>=20
> Sorry, I don't remember my name.
> Yesterday i wrote it down to a paper, but i dont remember where
> that paper is...

Doh, you mean, wait, it was.. Yes! The ..  Oh shoot, it's gone..

> > The main question, though, is: Which license will attract the highe=
st
> > number of (quality) developers in the long run.  You won't be
> > developing it alone after all.
> >=20
> > IMNSHO there is a clear preference among developers:
> >=20
> > BSD < LGPL < GPL
> >=20
> > Just so there is no misunderstanding: Of course there are BSD devs =
and
> > people who prefer BSD over the others (same for LGPL), but if you m=
ake
> > statistics you will come up with the above relationship.  This may =
not
> > be the case for proprietary software developers and their bosses, b=
ut
> > it surely is the case for free software (open source whatever you w=
ant
> > to call it) developers.  Just compare the amount of development don=
e
> > on MPlayer by the former and the latter.  I doubt we will see this
> > change.
>=20
> I cannot agree here.
> First of all, do a quick search for libraries on freshmeat, and re-co=
unt
> licenses. I have a bet that lgpl will win it.

I'm much too lazy to do that, but here is a quick unscientific count
on my (Debian unstable) system:

silver:/usr/share/doc$ for i in lib*; do (find $i -name copyright -exec=
 grep /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL {} \;) >> /tmp/lgpl; done
silver:/usr/share/doc$ wc -l /tmp/lgpl
106 /tmp/lgpl
silver:/usr/share/doc$ for i in lib*; do (find $i -name copyright -exec=
 grep /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL {} \;) >> /tmp/gpl; done
silver:/usr/share/doc$ wc -l /tmp/gpl
117 /tmp/gpl
silver:/usr/share/doc$ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/
Artistic  BSD  GPL  GPL-2  LGPL  LGPL-2  LGPL-2.1

So it's 117 GPL vs 106 LGPL libraries.

> Probably you didnt realized yet that g2 is more like a library framew=
ork,
> than a standalone player app (like g1).

I know that perfectly well.

> Also. I think that quailty developers don't really care of the licens=
e,
> they care more of the use of their work, ie if it can be used for
> more thing it's better.

That's wrong, just look at Michael, he does care about licenses and
free software.

> mplayer g1 was not gpl for the first 2 years, and
> it was developed imho more quickly (by less people but they worked a =
lot
> on it, not just contributing 1-2 small patches) than in teh past 2 ye=
ars.

Maybe.  But then again maybe it was just the fact that there was so
much ground to cover for Linux movie players back then.

> So, maybe you're right that gpl app will get more small contributors,=
 but
> it's not true that more ppl will work fulltime (or at least as their =
primary
> project for longer time period) on it if it's gpl. It's the reverse i=
mho.

I think it is quite the opposite.  I know quite a few people that
would not work fulltime on BSD since they would consider it free
labor.  To a lesser degree this also applies to LGPL.

I still believe you'll get more devs with GPL.  The ones that don't
care about licenses will join no matter what but those that do care
about licenses might not.  So on one side you loose devs on the other
you don't.

IMO you are trading in the hope of getting new developers for the risk
of loosing a few of the old ones.  Not a good deal.

> Also, you may say that GPL will protect us from the evil, from steali=
ng.
> Hey, where did you sleep in the past 4 years then=3F
> mplayer was stolen by many projects and companies, we don't even know=

> about most of them. we know a few, but couldnt really do anything
> against them, think of warpvision, xbox mp or the latest kiss issues.=


That's hardly a reason to give in to them.  Do you expect them to
contribute back under LGPL=3F

> Ok i know you're working on kiss problem, but i dont expect much from=
 it.

Time will tell.

> I also know that LGPL still won't protect us, but as it gives more
> freedom to users, they will more likely support us, instead of
> silently stealing the code. Or i'm just idealist, just like all
> you GPL fans, just a bit different way ;)

:)

> I think that widely used code is more important goal, than an
> 100% rms-compatible freedom.

You are of course entitled to this opinion and now I begin to
understand why you want LGPL.

> > IMO this is the worst of both worlds.  We don't get the funds that
> > might come in through dual licensing and we don't have the protecti=
on
> > and patch feedback offered through the GPL.
>=20
> probably time to read lgpl then. it still guarantees the patch
> feedback, just like gpl, thge only difference to gpl is that
> lgpl allows code linking to non-gpl apps.

Rest assured, I have read the LGPL in its entirety before and I have
read it again in its entirety when you sent the first mail in this
thread.  I suggest this to everybody who hasn't yet, btw.

Let me clarify.  We will get patches for the core but many extensions
will probably remain closed and out of bounds for us.

> and dont say it's dream, i do know several companies willing to do so=
=2E
> and it's not secret: i think that a big part of g2 plugins will be
> implemented by developers sponsored by these companies

Again, time will tell.

> note, that the case of g1 was simpler, it was the first usable player=
,
> the first player supporting filters etc. so most opensource
> developers made trheir code to g1. but in case of g2, there is no
> such priority. if we want ppl to work on g2, we need to pay them,
> or work for years until g2 gets to a state where it's better than g1.=

> i realized that nearly no one was interested in g2 development,
> even while it was gpl. and i cannot do all of it alone...

We'll have to see if this really improves then.

> > > Although it can be expected that some commercial users (think of
> > > settopbox, divx player etc makers) will sponsor some of you to do=

> > > custom development for them. I'm personally not interested much i=
n
> > > these, but i was asked by several companies in the past year
> > > (including some quite big ones), so i know there is such interest=
=2E
> >=20
> > We've heard many rumours about that, but no backing at all.  Is it =
a
> > secret=3F  Did you sign some sort of NDA=3F
>=20
> no, i dont sign such things. actually i dont sign anything :)
> anyway i'm not sure if i'm allowed to tell you, as they all asked
> me in private,

Unless they explicitly ask you for confidentiality, it should be no
problem and even then, they did not make you sign anything.

> but for a quick list: ESS-net (makers of lottery
> terminals over europe, inetesred in g2 core for their nextgen firmwar=
e),
> Antenna Hungaria (for their dvb receiver settopbox), some slovakian
> cable tv (i dont know their name) for their video conversion/archival=

> purposes, dream media (advertisement projector boxes) and so on.
> believe me, it's not fake.

OK, that is much better.  But what did they offer you=3F  Paying three
developers for a year or what=3F  What were they willing to contribute=3F=


> > I just don't believe in companies adopting LGPL MPlayer and
>=20
> i dont care if you believe or not. as you are not a g2 developer, are=
 you=3F

We'll see.

> > > WHY NOT GPL=3F
> > > GPL is just too limited for the purpose of g2 core. Even Michael =
and
> > > Alex agreed on irc. We need some license which allows at least li=
nking
> > > to plugins and UIs under different (even closed source) license.
> > > Why=3F Think of a 3rd party company developing codecs (like 3ivx,=
 On2 etc)
> > > they want to make their codecs available for linux (and other uni=
x)
> > > platforms natively (no DLL hack), but they cannot open the source=
,
> > > or they can but they dont want to put it under GPL.
> >=20
> > What license would they put it under=3F  BSD=3F  Surely not..
>=20
> dunno

OK, what I was trying to say is that those companies would choose GPL
if they were to open up their code.  Then they can use a dual license
strategy and they are prepared to sue abusers to hell and back.

> > Why would you need such a thing to drive such a kiosk=3F  What's th=
e
> > difference between a video and a browser kiosk=3F  I have seen brow=
ser
> > kiosks running Linux + Mozilla.  I mean why would they need a
> > different license=3F
>=20
> because of using special hardware which needs nda, or non-gpl librari=
es=3F
> because of using their special player ui designed for that kiosk, whi=
ch
> they dont want to release under gpl=3F
> (becase then its bugs could be find easier and the kiosks could be
> cracked=3F)

security by obscurity=3F  OK, this is getting offtopic..

> > The city of M=FCnster wants to become the most wired city in the wo=
rld
> > (they have fiber all over already) and offer high performance WLAN =
and
> > content streaming for its citizens.  They want to build all the
> > infrastructure on free software and release everything they create =
as
> > GPL.  They were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the
> > streaming solution.
>=20
> and why would they sponsor us=3F

As I said, they were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the
streaming solution and would sponsor modifications.

> > Then there was another company that wants to sponsor G2 development=
 as
> > a backend for a VJ (video jockey) application.  I forgot their name=

> > and apparently lost their damn business card, but Alex should have =
it.
>=20
> and their VJ app would be also GPL =3F i really doubt it.

Yes, it would be GPL.

> also, if you do simple math: lgpl allows linking to gpl and other
> license apps, gpl allows linking to gpl only. it alone means much mor=
e
> users of lgpl libraries. and more users mean more developers too.

There is no doubt that LGPL means more users.  The question is what
brings more devs.  We've both made simple math about that, we'll see.

> > > VF: i plan to use my code from pre47, and don't wait for Rich's
> > >     vaporware. and as Rich will probably refuse LGPL anyway,
> > >     it should not be a problem :)
> >=20
> > >From talking to Rich I know that he is opposed to LGPL.
> >=20
> > > i expect big flames about this, but please keep it short :)
> >=20
> > I tried my very best.
>=20
> you're slowly improving...

I'll take that as a compliment ;-P

Actually this was the first mail I sent, but my smarthost sometimes
refuses to accept the authentication, so this one got stuck.

Anyway, I'll keep standing on the sidelines and watch what happens.
My opinion will obviously not sway yours, but I felt the discussion
needed a dose from the other side as well.

As should be obvious by now, I'd much prefer GPL.

Diego