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

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]