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

Arpi writes:
>=20
> > > First of all, do a quick search for libraries on freshmeat, and r=
e-count
> > > licenses. I have a bet that lgpl will win it.
> >=20
> > I'm much too lazy to do that, but here is a quick unscientific coun=
t
> > on my (Debian unstable) system:
> >=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > So it's 117 GPL vs 106 LGPL libraries.
>=20
> no much difference. anyway it depends on how many apps you have
> installed and how well they share the common libraries.
>=20
> why don't you count gpl vs lgpl of lib* packages only=3F

Look closer, that's exactly what I did.

> > IMO you are trading in the hope of getting new developers for the r=
isk
> > of loosing a few of the old ones.  Not a good deal.
>=20
> there is no one to loose.
> except for Michael, but he accepted lgpl, with condition me coming ba=
ck.
> (also he accepted lgpl for libavcodec, which was much worse case)

Any pointers to the lavc license discussion=3F  I'd be interested in
reading it.

> ah, and as the core is in our hands, we can do anything we want,
> including copy drm'ed content downloaded by closedsrc plugins :)

Yes, this is a loophole that I've already described.  It's part of why
I believe proprietary companies will only use top to bottom
proprietary solutions.  Let's not talk too loud, though, they may fall
into our clever trap ;-)

> > > > The city of M=FCnster wants to become the most wired city in th=
e world
> > > > (they have fiber all over already) and offer high performance W=
LAN and
> > > > content streaming for its citizens.  They want to build all the=

> > > > infrastructure on free software and release everything they cre=
ate as
> > > > GPL.  They were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the
> > > > streaming solution.
> > >=20
> > > and why would they sponsor us=3F
> >=20
> > As I said, they were looking at MPlayer for the client part of the
> > streaming solution and would sponsor modifications.
>=20
> what modifications they need=3F a nice gui=3F

Cross-platform support with GUI on all platforms, improved streaming,
stuff like that.

> > > > Then there was another company that wants to sponsor G2 develop=
ment as
> > > > a backend for a VJ (video jockey) application.  I forgot their =
name
> > > > and apparently lost their damn business card, but Alex should h=
ave it.
> > >=20
> > > and their VJ app would be also GPL =3F i really doubt it.
> >=20
> > Yes, it would be GPL.
>=20
> then they cant sell it, so they cant get money from it, so they
> cant sponsor development unless they are also sponsored by
> gov or something.

They have a client that wants a VJ application.  They have been hired
to develop and service it, it's as easy as that.

> > As should be obvious by now, I'd much prefer GPL.
>=20
> i see.
> but as i already said, i'm personally not interested in gpl g2 develo=
pment.
> if someone needs a gpl player, use g1. if you need a clean library fr=
amework
> then you'll also need some acceptable license too.

xine-lib is GPL, btw, like you just asked on IRC.

Diego