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

Moin,

Damn, i'm again using worktime for somthing... stupid...

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 11:01:05AM +0200, Arpi wrote:
> > Why do you want to get commercial users onto MPlayer ?
> > Just for the sponsoring ? 
> 
> argh. no, of course.
> i just want to "legalize" (bad word for this, but i dont know the right one)
> video playback under non-m$ systems. most of the codec/container makers
> would port/develop their stuff for non-m$ systems, if they have any
> chance, ie. any usable API they can use, like quicktike or dshow on win/mac.
> unfortunatelly they don't have any 'standard api' under unix/linux, so they
> end up either not supporting unix, or they hack together some useless
> standalone player (see realplay, bink player etc).
> 
> we currently support most formats through win32 DLLs run by big hacks in
> emulators. ok, it's a working (x86-only) workaround, but not a solution.
> the soultion would be native codecs.
> and dont tell me to rev.eng. every single dll, because it's also not a
> solution...

I'm not yet sure whether lgpl is the right thing for this.
Comercial companies who care about contributing back will do so even if
we use gpl, but those who keep everything for themself will not even if
we use lgpl. 
You said on irc taht you dont care about user, may they be private or
comercial, but you care about comercial developers. I'm really not sure
whether an lgpl player framework will gain us any comercial devels as
they will be paid on working on the companies code which has to make
money and which is mostelikely the closed source part which they dont
want to publish for some obscure reason.
I also dont see how closed source codecs will help us, as currently the
way with the dlls works quite well (yes, i know it's not optimal).
And for the other part, i only see vo/ao modules as a place where closed
source would make sense (for special hw), but those companies should
rather make their code gpl instead as they make money from selling the
hardware and support, not from the software.
But i cannot say for sure what will happen as my cristal
ball is currently in repair.

> btw i wonder why m$ didnt notice this empty space, ie. the lack of a video
> framework uner unix, they could port their dshow/dmo api and let the
> companies port their codecs to it. so they could get monopol status over a
> free os when it comes to video playback :)

Simply to keep linux an unusable platform and thus binding normal users
to windows. But nowadays it has changed. If you'd know how many problems
the dshow/vfw framework creates for playback and how many people on
windows are using mplayer and vlc because they dont use it and thus
simply work, you'd be surprised.
IMHO m$ lost the video battle already, even on windows.
IMHO we should now go on and force them to use our, fully free formats.
(fully free as in rms compatible, as they cannot embrace and conquer it)

> > He came up with this idea a few months ago, after you left.
> > He never spelled it out in a mail but we talked a few times about it
> > on irc.
> 
> could you summarize it ?
> it's new to me...

The idea, as he told me, was to start completly from scratch as the
g1 design and the parts of it that were taken over to g2 are too
limited. First it should be started from a very small core that could
not do much more then just play an avi or a nut file on a very simple
vo, but would already contain all interface definitions for the more
advanced stuff. In a second (and third, fourth) step all those advanced
features should be implemented one by one.
Thus there would be a usable player from the beginning, as the core
should be easy to write.

> > > > What do you want to achive?
> > > working, usable g2
> > > 
> > > > How do you want to do it ?
> > > quickly
> > 
> > Good.. 
> > You can count on my support here.
> 
> nice. not that you can do much here :)

Small note here: Diego pointed out that it was not exactly clear what i
meant:
I mean that i support you if you want to do something. I definitly will
not stand in your way. But, i'm not sure whether lgpl is the right thing
or whether gpl would be better. And i'm even getting more undecided by
reading the mails here.

 
> > I know that at least Diego and iive are reading this list (alex
> > disapears from time to time). Also Michael didnt respond.
> 
> i talked with them at irc, few days before sent this mail.
> i had to talk to at least Michael, his code is key point of whole g2.

All developers code is the key point of OSS development.
No code w/o developers.

(that's why i see myself as a bad member of the OSS movement,
i write not enough code)

			Attila Kinali