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 but then if this can be done somehow, you won't have a
problem with it, right?
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 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 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..
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?
> 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?
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?
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 -