Hi Cobra:

I just installed my registered version DvPlayer! Nice & professional!

Thanks

Quote:

"They" are "the blue trolls" that brouht up the matter. liba52 is the AC3 codec library. It's license is GPL, not LGPL which would've made things easier.

thanks for explaining.

Quote:

The demo isn't available at the moment, It's been removed from the site...

no other place to grab it from? i've been so happy to finally download it he whole day long... then i came home and

byebye...

_________________
Michael Merkel
(Michael.Merkel@gmx.net Home)
Member of Amiga-Freunde Pfalz, OS4 Welt

That would violate the GPL. Can't distribute the binaries without being able to distribute the source. So the answer has to be no, sorry.

Regards,
Jocke 'Zerohero' Birging

_________________
Common sense - So rare it's almost like a super power

it's sad there are problems with legal issues, even more sad is the people who brings this up. Their motives smell like childlish harrassment.

Anyway, this is just one sad dog speaking his opinion! :)

Continue the good work cobra!

_________________
0 % Amiga.
www.amigabounty.net

So it's ok to break the rules if noone sees you?

Regards,
Jocke 'Zerohero' Birging

_________________
Common sense - So rare it's almost like a super power

I think Dvplayer is using Ffmpeg http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffmpeg
Witch is LGPL.

Last edited by Mr_Khyron on 15-Aug-2005 at 07:46 PM.

Quote:

So it's ok to break the rules if noone sees you?

So it's ok to stretch the rules to try and steal someone elses work if you can get away with it?

_________________
OS4 Rocks
X1000 beta tester, Sam440 Flex (733)

Visit the Official OS4 Support Site for more help.

It may be that your sole purpose is to serve as a warning to others.

I believe they should've thought about that before including said codec, but that's IMO. It's even in the PDF that they support AC3 decoding. If you are going to use other peoples code, and make money off it you should really read that licensing stuff.

@Mr_Khyron

liba52 is GPL...

Regards,
Jocke 'Zerohero' Birging

edit: fixed typo, and reworded to be less agressive.

Last edited by zerohero on 15-Aug-2005 at 07:56 PM.

_________________
Common sense - So rare it's almost like a super power

Quote:

So it's ok to stretch the rules to try and steal someone elses work if you can get away with it?

Eh, who exactly is trying to do that?

_________________

MOS core-developer

The actual mail from him, he provided the link into Saku-Forum:
http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/dvplayer_gpl/mail.txt

It took only few hours

Yeah, and? Do not forget that the MPlayer port is based on the MorphOS port, they didn't have any trouble providing everyone with the source code.

_________________

Quote:

So it's ok to stretch the rules

Generally speaking, abiding to the rules isn't streching them, it's, as said, abiding to them.

As for the case at hand, if one really wants to get around the GPL, a way to do it is to simply not distribute binaries of the GPL code - which actually isn't getting around the GPL, as you just get to the point where it doesn't apply anymore - distribute them as sources. The rest of the "trick" is left as an excercise for the reader

Last edited by falemagn on 15-Aug-2005 at 08:08 PM.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Sad if those rumours are true.

I think that whole current GPL lisence is a failure, even if it's widely used. LGPL is much better because it allows you to write closed source application which links dynamicly with LGPLd library. Not allowing that is simply stupid and too restrictive. GPL was created long time ago, It's about time to have new modernized version of that lisence. AFAIK they are already working with new version, don't know when it's released though.

GPL was created in 1980's when applications were not as modular as they are today. GPL has not changed much, but applications have. This is what you get when you use 20+ years old lisence..

Last edited by miksuh on 15-Aug-2005 at 08:29 PM.
Last edited by miksuh on 15-Aug-2005 at 08:23 PM.

Quote:

think that whole current GPL lisence is a failure, even if it's widely used.

Why so? A license simply states the will of the programmer that puts her sw under that certain license. If a programmer choses to use GPL it's because she doesn't want anyone to use her sw as part of proprietary sw.

What's wrong with that?

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

I said why.

@fabio

Nothing per se. However, as the GPL people seem to begin to realize, wide-spread adoptation of software can be a good thing. Partially because more bugs may be found (of course this requires the programmer to have the conscience to send back the changes).
GPL was created to kick-start open source development. Now that it has reached critical mass, GPL isn't as relevant as it used to be. At least I think that OSS has come so far as to reach critical mass.

@BGenEye:

Yes, it's amazing how much effort he put into it ;)

Seems that OS4 software is under magnifiers.

About the issue: I believe it must be solved between the authors, not 3rd party GPL "polices".

@falemagn

I think that GPL is one of the biggest reasons which seriously slows down closed source and commercial development eg. for the Linux. People have used lots of time developing cool libraries but then they use GPL lisence and say "you can't use this in closed source product", "you need to re-invent the wheel if you want to do something similar" Companies don't want to use time and money re-inventing the wheel. Atleast not if the target market is smaller than Windows market. It would benefit all if people would use LGPL instead of GPL, both opensource community and software companies. And ofcourse users too.

Last edited by miksuh on 15-Aug-2005 at 09:06 PM.
Last edited by miksuh on 15-Aug-2005 at 09:02 PM.

Eh, knowing Piru, that was no effort at all. He cares as he has worked on lots of GPL projects and complied. Why should someone else not comply?

_________________

@AMIGR:

Yes, I know Piru too and what he can do.

I will comply GPL licence.

I was just saying that this might not be for us to judge.