[livesupport-dev] DAAP is all around
  • we're featured on a Gnome Planet blog entry here:

    http://blogs.gnome.org/view/uraeus/2005/09/13/0

    Smile
  • 13 Comments sorted by
  • At 23:00 13.09.2005, you wrote:
    >we're featured on a Gnome Planet blog entry here:
    >
    >http://blogs.gnome.org/view/uraeus/2005/09/13/0

    we are, the project is. but essentially you are mentioned between the lines Wink


    Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

    content and media development http://mi.cz
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.campware.org -- http://www.redall.de -- http://suemi.de
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Micz Flor wrote:
    > we are, the project is. but essentially you are mentioned between the
    > lines Wink

    well, it's a group effort Smile
  • What are the licensing issues he mentions? That we're GPL?
  • Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    > What are the licensing issues he mentions? That we're GPL?

    yes, and that official gstreamer elements are LGPL
  • Hm. It's already released, so I don't know what we could do there. Otherwise, I'd be interested in looking at releasing that element as LGPL just so it can be included in the Gstreamer distribution, but don't really know what that entails, especially now that the genie's out of the bottle. dougÁkos Maróy <darkeye@tyrell.hu>09/14/2005 03:32 PM ZE2Please respond to livesupport-dev To: livesupport-dev@campware.org cc: bcc: Subject: Re: [livesupport-dev] DAAP is all around Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:> What are the licensing issues he mentions? That we're GPL?yes, and that official gstreamer elements are LGPL
  • Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    > Hm. It's already released, so I don't know what we could do there.
    > Otherwise, I'd be interested in looking at releasing that element as
    > LGPL just so it can be included in the Gstreamer distribution, but don't
    > really know what that entails, especially now that the genie's out of
    > the bottle.

    I'm not sure myself how re-licensing or double-licensing works, but I've
    seen it before Smile but then if this can be done somehow, you won't have a
    problem with it, right?

    BTW, we're posted on the gstreamer applications page:
    http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/apps/


    Akos
  • At 11:36 15.09.2005, you wrote:
    >Douglas.Arellanes@mdlf.org wrote:
    > > Hm. It's already released, so I don't know what we could do there.
    > > Otherwise, I'd be interested in looking at releasing that element as
    > > LGPL just so it can be included in the Gstreamer distribution, but don't
    > > really know what that entails, especially now that the genie's out of
    > > the bottle.
    >
    >I'm not sure myself how re-licensing or double-licensing works, but I've
    >seen it before Smile but then if this can be done somehow, you won't have a
    >problem with it, right?

    personally i don't mind so much if it is GPL or LGPL.

    but please, did i understand this correctly?

    - there is a module (plug in?) you wrote for GStreamer
    - thi smodule is part of LS
    - i.e. it has the LS license, the GPL

    would it be a possibility to move the plugin entirely to the GStreamer
    code? and under their license?

    rather than chopping up our code into different sub projects under
    different licenses?


    Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

    content and media development http://mi.cz
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.campware.org -- http://www.redall.de -- http://suemi.de
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Micz Flor wrote:
    > personally i don't mind so much if it is GPL or LGPL.
    >
    > but please, did i understand this correctly?
    >
    > - there is a module (plug in?) you wrote for GStreamer

    actually it's several (4) 'gstreamer elements' (you could call them plugins)

    > - thi smodule is part of LS

    yes, they currently are

    > - i.e. it has the LS license, the GPL

    yes

    >
    > would it be a possibility to move the plugin entirely to the GStreamer
    > code? and under their license?

    under LPGL insted of GPL, and I don't know who's copyright. it would
    have the advantage of having greater exposure, more testers, more
    developers -> more refined modules

    >
    > rather than chopping up our code into different sub projects under
    > different licenses?

    of course our code base should remain under the same license..


    Akos
  • At 11:49 15.09.2005, you wrote:
    > > would it be a possibility to move the plugin entirely to the GStreamer
    > > code? and under their license?
    >
    >under LPGL insted of GPL, and I don't know who's copyright. it would
    >have the advantage of having greater exposure, more testers, more
    >developers -> more refined modules
    >
    > >
    > > rather than chopping up our code into different sub projects under
    > > different licenses?
    >
    >of course our code base should remain under the same license..

    in which case you would move them to gstreamer, under MDLF license and you
    as the author, i suppose. with the LGPL license.

    for future LS releases that would mean that we take the code *back* from
    the gstreamer distribution.

    but how would we develop it? on their CVS/subversion?

    Micz Flor - micz@mi.cz

    content and media development http://mi.cz
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.campware.org -- http://www.redall.de -- http://suemi.de
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Micz Flor wrote:
    > in which case you would move them to gstreamer, under MDLF license and
    > you as the author, i suppose. with the LGPL license.

    the copyright owner for all campware code currently is MDLF.

    as with gstreamer, they have a range of license / author information.
    for example, for the vorbis deoder plugin it lloks like this:


    Factory Details:
    Long name: VorbisDec
    Class: Codec/Decoder/Audio
    Description: decode raw vorbis streams to float audio
    Author(s): Benjamin Otte
    Rank: primary (256)

    Plugin Details:
    Name: vorbis
    Description: Vorbis plugin library
    Filename: /usr/lib/gstreamer-0.8/libgstvorbis.so
    Version: 0.8.8
    License: LGPL
    Package: GStreamer source release
    Origin URL: http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/


    whereas for our minimal audio SMIL plugin, it looks like this:

    Factory Details:
    Long name: MinimalAudioSmil
    Class: Parse/Smil
    Description: A minimal SMIL player, supporting only audio
    Author(s): Akos Maroy
    Rank: secondary (128)

    Plugin Details:
    Name: minimalaudiosmil
    Description: Minimal Audio-only SMIL
    Filename:
    /home/darkeye/src/livesupport/livesupport/modules/gstreamerElements/lib/liblivesupport_minimalaudiosmil.so
    Version: $Revision: 1.8 $
    License: GPL
    Package: LiveSupport
    Origin URL: http://livesupport.campware.org/



    > for future LS releases that would mean that we take the code *back* from
    > the gstreamer distribution.
    >
    > but how would we develop it? on their CVS/subversion?

    it would be hosted on their servers, yes.


    Akos
  • this sounds fine by me. akos, the only question: for future developments:
    does it make life more complicated for you if you have to handle two
    CVS/subversion locations for one software package?

    At 12:15 15.09.2005,
  • Micz Flor wrote:
    > this sounds fine by me. akos, the only question: for future
    > developments: does it make life more complicated for you if you have to
    > handle two CVS/subversion locations for one software package?

    I did think about having these gstreamer elements in both the LS source
    tree and at gstreamer. but maybe it's a better thing to have them only
    at one place.

    that would mean only for the gstreamer elements, of course. all other LS
    code (the ones that use these elements, etc.) would be naturally still
    part of the LS code tree.
  • On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 13:06 +0200, Ákos Maróy wrote:
    > Micz Flor wrote:
    > > this sounds fine by me. akos, the only question: for future
    > > developments: does it make life more complicated for you if you have to
    > > handle two CVS/subversion locations for one software package?
    >
    > I did think about having these gstreamer elements in both the LS source
    > tree and at gstreamer. but maybe it's a better thing to have them only
    > at one place.
    >
    > that would mean only for the gstreamer elements, of course. all other LS
    > code (the ones that use these elements, etc.) would be naturally still
    > part of the LS code tree.
    >

    For all of you who want to be part of this topic on the gstreamer list,
    please checkout -

    http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=8184461&forum_id=5947