xanim plugins
Here is the reply from xanim author regarding xanim plugins. I also tried to
prod him for making it free software, but apparently that is not happening
because he is making money on xanim.
------- Forwarded Message
From: podlipec@BayNetworks.COM (Mark Podlipec)
Message-Id: <199806220310.XAA29727@pobox.engeast.BayNetworks.COM>
Subject: Re: Some random ideas for xanim.
To: igor@igoria.net (Igor Grobman)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 23:10:58 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <199806211450.KAA02028@hmm.nowhere> from "Igor Grobman" at Jun 21, 1998 10:50:25 AM
Organization: Bay Networks Inc. Billerica MA
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0b2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 91f0cf1af168d22bc3c40f68a2cad7e7
> Hi!
> This is your debian maintainer yet again ;-).
Oh no. :^)
> This thread, a message from which I forwarded below started with someone
> looking for codec modules for alpha, finding them, and suggesting we include
> them all (i386, alpha and other platforms) in the debian source package. The
> rest of this small thread can be seen below... Plug-ins instead of objects
> that have to be compiled in is an interesting idea.
Yes, it is and it will happen for some platforms.
I'm working on redefining the video/audio decompression API's. Once
that happens, I plan on also setting up plugins.
However note that Linux isn't quite stable enough to be worth working
on plugins. They're making major changes to the libraries and are breaking
things left and right. readdir() and dynamic loading are two
key things that broke between revs. So they'll need to recompile
anyways.
> Also, while we are on the copyright subject, is there a good reason you have
> the "non-commercial" use restriction on xanim?
Yes, that's how I pull in enough money to keep developing xanim. It's how
I buy the machines, peripherals and software needed. It's how I hire
the lawyers and how I pay for licensing some of the codecs.
> I hate when someone pushes ideas onto others as much as the next guy, but
> I think some of my ideas are good ;-), so take this with a grain of salt
> or skip it if you've already seen too much free software advocacy.
>
> I really hate "non-commercial" use clauses on otherwise free software,
> because it puts a big restriction on the user usually without a good reason.
> Do you have someone paying you for a commercial license?
Yes, it is currently being licensed.
...
> restrictive, but makes sure software stays free. If the reason for your
> non-commercial use clause is the fear of someone taking your code and making
> money on it, GPL will protect your code from that occurence.
GPL doesn't do that at all. GPL just prevents them from claiming
they wrote it and makes sure they will make the source available.
Also keep in mind that without the codecs, xanim is not that useful.
...
> As you suspect my point is to convince you of applying one of the free
> licenses to xanim. It would be really cool if you did that, since that would
> produce the first truly free viewer for some of the video formats.
While I agree in principal, I don't believe I could continue working
on xanim if it didn't pay its own way. While I'm sure others would pick
it up, I happen to like working on it.
Mark
------- End of Forwarded Message
--
Proudly running Debian Linux! Linux vs. Windows is a no-Win situation....
Igor Grobman igor@debian.org igor@igoria.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: