Skip to main content

Topic: Licensing discussion. (Read 7886 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Coolin
  • [*]
Licensing discussion.
Dang... And I thought "MAD" meant that Winamp switched MP3 decoders...

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #1
Quote
Originally posted by Coolin
Dang... And I thought "MAD" meant that Winamp switched MP3 decoders...


LOL

Give up... I doubt Nullsoft is willing to include MAD sources with every download.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Dibrom
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #2
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim

Give up... I doubt Nullsoft is willing to include MAD sources with every download.


Actually they wouldn't have to do this anyway.  The GPL doesn't state that you have to distribute the sources, only that they have to be available upon request.  So they could still include the MAD plugin in binary form and just point them to the normal MAD homepage for the sources.

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #3
Quote
Originally posted by Destroid
That'd be scary, uh? BTW, the first time I saw a blatant ad-induced promo aside from the AOL thingee. Was it their idea or Nullsoft's? And what is to become of Winamp3 in the future? Cydoor and Gator enhancements?


Blah. Nonsense. Winamp provided special versions with custom skins before. I downloaded a special U2 version that came with a tune! (Damn crippled WMA)

I think we should wait before making these kinds of assumptions that can lead to defamation of a good product.

Besides, the Mad magazine belongs to AOLTW. IMO, it's perfectly fine if they want to promote their own product in an unobtrusive way.

Regards;

Roberto.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #4
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
Actually they wouldn't have to do this anyway.  The GPL doesn't state that you have to distribute the sources, only that they have to be available upon request.  So they could still include the MAD plugin in binary form and just point them to the normal MAD homepage for the sources.


That's not what people yell at me when they <cough> demand that I host oggdec sources at my page.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Dibrom
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #5
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim


That's not what people yell at me when they <cough> demand that I host oggdec sources at my page.


Hrmm... well then I think they are wrong.  Read the license, but I'm pretty certain that you don't have to distribute the sources yourself if you didn't modify them.  I think the only clause in the license mandates that the sources be available, nothing more.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is the case.

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #6
Quote
Originally posted by Dibrom
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain this is the case.


You're right:

Quote
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: 

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)


Edit: Taken from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Destroid
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #7
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim


Blah. Nonsense. Winamp provided special versions with custom skins before. I downloaded a special U2 version that came with a tune! (Damn crippled WMA)

You're right! Forgot about that one. Version 2.23 or something, can't remember.

Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim

I think we should wait before making these kinds of assumptions that can lead to defamation of a good product.


Ah yes, the forum-liable defamation suit thing. Well, I certainly didn't state that Winamp had adware and I hope it never does. BTW, if Winamp is free what would they have to gain from suing somebody?

Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim

Besides, the Mad magazine belongs to AOLTW. IMO, it's perfectly fine if they want to promote their own product in an unobtrusive way.

Regards;

Roberto.

...if I'd known these things I wouldn't have used a smaller stick to stir up the mud
"Something bothering you, Mister Spock?"

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #8
reminder: GPL "infects" entire program, in theory using any GPL code in Winamp plugins is against the license.

  • Emanuel
  • [*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #9
Quote
Originally posted by rjamorim
Bizar...

This post says it's RC1:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/showth...st&postid=21663


My fault. I assumed it was RC1 since the versions at Winamp.com sometimes comes a few days after other sites, and RC1 have not yet been seen there. Seems that they jumped from beta 3 to RC2.

  • ftc
  • [*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #10
Quote
Originally posted by zZzZzZz
reminder: GPL "infects" entire program, in theory using any GPL code in Winamp plugins is against the license.


Plugin can be viewed as dynamic Libraries. So you can distribute your program with a GPL library providing only the source of the library and not the source of the program. GPL infects the program when you build static.

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #11
and which part of GPL says so ?
well, some people might consider winamp.exe and its standard plugins being something "that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs"

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #12
Quote
Originally posted by zZzZzZz
and which part of GPL says so ? 
well, some people might consider winamp.exe and its standard plugins being something "that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs"


The GPL doesn't seem to be awfully clear either. Blah. :-P
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • ftc
  • [*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #13
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. This means that linking the GPL-covered plug-in with the main program would violate the GPL.

A Winamp plug in can't be released under the GPL but ...

However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your program's license which gives permission to link it with the non-free main program[/I]

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF

I think LGPL is better for making a plug in for a non-free software.


Despite it is not the MAD plug in which is ditribute with Winamp but a MAD Theme (the American Magazine).

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #14
sure LGPL is better for this kind of stuff. now convince all GPL software makers to switch from GPL to LGPL and whole world will thank you.
another pain - even if you don't care about dynamic linking, you can't statically link GPL code to code with another license (eg. BSD-ish, like a lot of stuff we use, including statically linked winamp3 sdk files).

  • fwyzard
  • [*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #15
Quote
Originally posted by zZzZzZz
sure LGPL is better for this kind of stuff. now convince all GPL software makers to switch from GPL to LGPL and whole world will thank you.
another pain - even if you don't care about dynamic linking, you can't statically link GPL code to code with another license (eg. BSD-ish, like a lot of stuff we use, including statically linked winamp3 sdk files).


on the other hand...[/b]
...now convince all proprietary software makers to switch to GPL and whole lot more people in the world will thank you.

Fyre Wyzard

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #16
Quote
Originally posted by fwyzard


on the other hand...

...now convince all proprietary software makers to switch to GPL and whole lot more people in the world will thank you.

communist....
how the hell are we supposed to earn money in GPL'd world ? what you want means banning all closed code. reminds me certain chapters of history.

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #17
Quote
Originally posted by fwyzard
on the other hand...
...now convince all proprietary software makers to switch to GPL and whole lot more people in the world will thank you.


LOL. LOL!!!!!!

Absurd.

On the other hand, that means you won't have to make choices between good and bad software anymore. Everything will be bad. :-P
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • ftc
  • [*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #18
how the hell are we supposed to earn money in GPL'd world ?

The programmer can publish is work with 2 licences, GPL to distibute the source code for those who want to make GPL software, proprietary licence for those who wants to make proprietary software (cf MySQL).

You can also earn money by providing a service, it's my job.

If you want to freely offer your code for proprietary software maker you can choose BSD like licence (cf ZLib which is included in many commercial softwares without paying any fees and without contributing to Open Source Community).

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #19
finally done new wa3plugz. important: this is intended ONLY for RC2, not for anything older/newer.
mpc plugin is still the old one (read: SV7.1 does not work), new one based on latest winamp2 plugin is coming soon.
diskwriter and replaygain are temporarily unavailable (bugs in winamp3 core preventing them from functioning properly, hopefully to be fixed in RC3).

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #20
Quote
Originally posted by ftc
how the hell are we supposed to earn money in GPL'd world ?  

The programmer can publish is work with 2 licences, GPL to distibute the source code for those who want to make GPL software, proprietary licence for those who wants to make proprietary software (cf MySQL).
Wrong. GPL'd world = NO propertiary software. (which obviously will never happen, thanks God).

  • rjamorim
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Licensing discussion.
Reply #21
Quote
Originally posted by ftc
how the hell are we supposed to earn money in GPL'd world ?  

The programmer can publish is work with 2 licences, GPL to distibute the source code for those who want to make GPL software, proprietary licence for those who wants to make proprietary software (cf MySQL).


LOL!!!

You said the entire world should use GPL. Then, who would buy special licenses from these software developers, since there would be no proprietary software?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Anyway...
That works for people selling technologies. Like mySQL.
But what about people selling solutions, like Adobe, AutoDesk, Corel, Syntrillium, SAP... People aren't interested in embedding their tecnology in other software, they are interestred in their very software. In this case (very high-quality, specialized software), GPL = bankrupt.

Quote
(cf ZLib which is included in many commercial softwares without paying any fees and without contributing to Open Source Community).


I don't see zLib as not contributing for open source community. It contributes  - for all communities - in the way of standardization. If it was GPL'ed, there would be lots of other compression libraries around that would require knowledge of each one of them so that they can be used in each case. With zlib, there's less redundancy. It's slowly becoming a standard for data compression. That surely wouldn't happen if it was GPL'd.

Most browsers can load Gzipped pages. That's a great advance, for everyone - open source community, closed source community, end users that don't give a damn about source codes - because you can load pages faster. I'm sure it wouldn't be that way if zlib used GPL.
Get up-to-date binaries of Lame, AAC, Vorbis and much more at RareWares:
http://www.rarewares.org

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #22
about zlib - it's the kind of software everyone uses everywhere. i can't imagine the world without it or with it having different (more restrictive) license.

Licensing discussion.
Reply #23
can we configure your dsound plug without configurification? is there a settings file?
"...ambience?, I AM ambience!"

  • Peter
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Licensing discussion.
Reply #24
hell, i am afraid you can't. someone smart decided to remove config.wac from standard distributions, even i don't have it. appears that studio.xnf file stores only variables that have been modified (but you can't modify dsound settings, so they don't get stored and you can't access them via studio.xnf).