HydrogenAudio

Hosted Forums => foobar2000 => Development - (fb2k) => Topic started by: wilho on 2003-06-05 15:06:32

Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: wilho on 2003-06-05 15:06:32
Before I'm gonna irritate someone, I'll have to say thanks for a great player - wich I have been happily using for a few months now. I'm partial linux user, and it came to me that it would be nice to have this ported..so I looked for sources, but I could'nt find them. ( I don't really think that I really have time and dedication to do that, but for a interest. GUI at least seems to simple to port at least . )

So am I blind or is there not sources available? I really thought this was GPL'ed. Is it not, and why in earth? At least it uses at least few Libraries which are, right? You're not gonna make any profit with this anyway?

Well, all said for now
-wilho
Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: Curi0us_George on 2003-06-05 15:19:39
No, it's not GPLed.  Nor does it use any GPLed libraries.  It uses mpglib, which released under the LGPL.  Foobar may use other LGPLed libraries as well.  I'm not sure.

Peter has released a huge amount of non-core code, but releasing the core would encourage people to make hacks on the core to add functionality which could be added through plugins.  It would also encourage splits in the project, which is a rather common occurence in the Open Source world.  (OpenBSD, anyone?)
Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: Aero on 2003-06-05 20:11:45
Quote
Peter has released a huge amount of non-core code, but releasing the core would encourage people to make hacks on the core to add functionality which could be added through plugins.  It would also encourage splits in the project, which is a rather common occurence in the Open Source world.  (OpenBSD, anyone?)

You might have a point, but using OpenBSD is probably the worst example you could have picked.  The forking of OpenBSD from NetBSD has spurred more development and progress than prior to the split (and I run NetBSD exclusively, so I can't be accused of having an OpenBSD bias).  There is frequent code sharing between all of the variations of BSD, and all 3 are stronger because of the forking, not despite it.

Anyway, to get back on topic...I haven't tried it, but I understand that Foobar runs fairly well under WINE on Linux, so the original poster might want to give that a shot.
Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: Curi0us_George on 2003-06-05 20:16:32
Well, Peter never actually said anything about not releasing the code because it might get split off into other projects.  That's just me.

And I don't actually thing FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD are all better off as a result of the splits, but whatever.  I definitely don't care enough to argue the point.
Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: foosion on 2003-06-06 07:23:55
Since the fb2k API is open, anyone with enough dedication might go and implement his/her own core. Well behaving plugins should work with any correct core implementation. Porting to Linux or *BSD or whatever would require changes to the API and pfc, because of Win32 functions/types and feature specific to the MS compiler are used there.
Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: zanson on 2003-06-06 14:47:13
Quote
Since the fb2k API is open, anyone with enough dedication might go and implement his/her own core. Well behaving plugins should work with any correct core implementation. Porting to Linux or *BSD or whatever would require changes to the API and pfc, because of Win32 functions/types and feature specific to the MS compiler are used there.

While someone is reinventing fb2k they should do it in Java! then we could run it on our java enable watches and key fobs... 
Title: Oh, this wasn't open source?
Post by: MaxAuthority on 2003-06-16 14:57:34
Quote
While someone is reinventing fb2k they should do it in Java! then we could run it on our java enable watches and key fobs...  

Well then in Java it would be slow, ugly and big - hmm, just the opposite to C++ now
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021