Hi, On Tue, Jan 24, 2006, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > AFAIK that's only if you want to distribute their binary. If you want to > 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 > 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 MP3 > 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, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Current Earth status: NOT DESTROYED -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
