| Loïc Minier 2006-01-25, 2:58 am |
| Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want t=
o
> distribute their source, then that's just the MIT license.
Yes, that's how I see it too.
> Plenty of GPLd applications in Debian still use GStreamer, so this
> doesn't solve a real problem.
I think MAD support is in the "ugly" plugins precisely because it has a
GPL dep (libmad). The fluendo mp3 plugin does not "taint" GStreamer.
#317129 relates a similar problem.
> 1) -ugly get past NEW, we get MAD, users get MP3 decoding, situation
> stays as its been for years, or=20
> 2) We take the patent issue seriously, and drop all MP3 support.
> (Speaking with my hat as a DD, and as upstream maintainer of an MP3
> player that uses GStreamer and doesn't want to deal with two sets of MP=
3
> decoding bugs.)
I agree in general with your opinion, but I want to emphasize that I'm
not preparing fluendo-mp3 _because_ ugly is still in NEW. It's only
the more open license of fluendo-mp3 which motivated this decision.
Cheers,
--=20
Lo=EFc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Current Earth status: NOT DESTROYED
|