Re: [Freerdp-devel] FreeRDP in Ubuntu 11.04

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27/01/11 23:42, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 01/27/2011 04:51 AM, Robert Ancell wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi FreeRDPers! >> >> I'm currently trying to get Remmina/FreeRDP as the default on >> the Ubuntu 11.04 CD

Re: [Freerdp-devel] High CPU usage with flaky network

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 02/07/2011 04:55 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> >> As indicated in the subject, I'm seeing very high CPU usage (100%) >> when I run an xfreerdp session over a network connection with high >> packet loss. Specifically, I have an openvpn sessio

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Otavio, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 19:37, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > > Hi Otavio, > > I can't force your hand, if there is too much opposition to a license > more > > permissive than LGPL then I will have no choice but to comply. Maybe th

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hello, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 20:19, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jay Sorg wrote: >> If this must be done, there is another alternative. >> Rewrite the library from docs using the new license. >> I would join this effort plus I would like to re architect libfreerdp

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 19:37, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi Otavio, > I can't force your hand, if there is too much opposition to a license more > permissive than LGPL then I will have no choice but to comply. Maybe the > timing isn't right, it might be a little too early to switch to something as

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Jay, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Jay Sorg wrote: > Marc, > > For the record, consider all my contributions to FreeRDP to be > re-licensable under Apache, MIT, BSD, LGPL, pretty much whatever you > like. > > Thanks > If this must be done, there is another alternative. > Rewrite the libra

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hallo, * Otavio Salvador [20110207 20:12]: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:59, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Otavio Salvador > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau > >> wrote: > >> >> If

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Marc, For the record, consider all my contributions to FreeRDP to be re-licensable under Apache, MIT, BSD, LGPL, pretty much whatever you like. If this must be done, there is another alternative. Rewrite the library from docs using the new license. I would join this effort plus I would like to re

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Josh, The problem with GPL in Apple's App Store is the additional restrictions that Apple imposes in order to build and install from source an application. In order to do that, you need to be a registered developer. Since GPL forbids adding additional restrictions, Apple's App Store is technica

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Otavio, I can't force your hand, if there is too much opposition to a license more permissive than LGPL then I will have no choice but to comply. Maybe the timing isn't right, it might be a little too early to switch to something as permissive as ASL. However, if we switch to LGPL now, would yo

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 17:59, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Otavio Salvador > wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau >> wrote: >> >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with you but >> >> nowadays I don't. We lack too many features a

Re: [Freerdp-devel] New capabilities

Hello Now FastIndex capability is pushed, I turned my efforts to the FastGlyph (see attached patch). However I don't know what to do with the case where the doc says: "glyph data MUST be retrieved". I think someone with more experience than me could give some help with that. Thanks for the a

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi Mads, > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: >> >> On 02/07/2011 07:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> > Hi FreeRDP developers, >> Some less relevant comments/opinions: >> >> OpenSSL is AFAIK the only common crypto

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:14, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > >> Personally I as a minor contributor is fine with relicensing my > >> contributions under other open source licenses. FWIW I would prefer a > >> license that allowed integration

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 02/07/2011 05:14 PM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > >> We could go GPLv3 right now without asking them, since the GPL itself >> allows an upgrade of the license to a later version within the license >> itself, but that's a special case. >> >

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with you but > >> nowadays I don't. We lack too many features and the code contribution > >> is a safe-path for us to get them

Re: [Freerdp-devel] High CPU usage with flaky network

On 02/07/2011 04:55 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > As indicated in the subject, I'm seeing very high CPU usage (100%) > when I run an xfreerdp session over a network connection with high > packet loss. Specifically, I have an openvpn session to my office that > sometimes flakes out on me. > > My guess i

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On 02/07/2011 05:14 PM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > We could go GPLv3 right now without asking them, since the GPL itself > allows an upgrade of the license to a later version within the license > itself, but that's a special case. Since we are discussing details: No, GPLv2 itself do not allow an

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:05, Marc-André Moreau > wrote: > ... > > 2) With a reciprocal license, people will be forced to contribute back, > but > > they might not use the code at all because of that (chilling effect) > > I agree that it i

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:49, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> If we had a feature-complete client I might agree with you but >> nowadays I don't. We lack too many features and the code contribution >> is a safe-path for us to get them done. If someone wants to have a >> closed client, go and do it fro

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:14, Marc-André Moreau wrote: >> Personally I as a minor contributor is fine with relicensing my >> contributions under other open source licenses. FWIW I would prefer a >> license that allowed integration in non-GPL projects but required all >> changes to FreeRDP code its

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 16:05, Marc-André Moreau wrote: ... > 2) With a reciprocal license, people will be forced to contribute back, but > they might not use the code at all because of that (chilling effect) > I agree that it is a possible risk, but I think that it is probably better > to go for s

Re: [Freerdp-devel] Vote for Apache license change

MIT looks like a good alternative to Apache License 2.0, that would probably be my choice #2. Also, please reply in the same thread discussing the license change ;) On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Michael Adams wrote: > Regarding Marc-Andre's post on switching to the Apache License, I've > looke

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Mads, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote: > On 02/07/2011 07:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > > Hi FreeRDP developers, > > > > It has been in our plans for a while now to change the current licensing > > of FreeRDP to something more permissive. We are currently using GPLv2

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Otavio, While LGPL is more permissive than GPL, code within the library is still affected by the virality of the license. There are two possible views on this: 1) With a permissive (non-reciprocal) license, people might use our code without contributing back 2) With a reciprocal license, peopl

[Freerdp-devel] High CPU usage with flaky network

As indicated in the subject, I'm seeing very high CPU usage (100%) when I run an xfreerdp session over a network connection with high packet loss. Specifically, I have an openvpn session to my office that sometimes flakes out on me. My guess is that the software is doing a busy-wait loop somewhere

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hi Josh, Actually, Apache License 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3, but not GPLv2. Here is more info: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html I was thinking that we might keep the UIs GPL'ed, since I don't see much use in making the

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

On 02/07/2011 07:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi FreeRDP developers, > > It has been in our plans for a while now to change the current licensing > of FreeRDP to something more permissive. We are currently using GPLv2 > for everything, which is not necessarily a good thing, especially when > i

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

Hello, On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 06:12, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi FreeRDP developers, > It has been in our plans for a while now to change the current licensing of > FreeRDP to something more permissive. We are currently using GPLv2 for > everything, which is not necessarily a good thing, especi

Re: [Freerdp-devel] License Change

A disclaimer: I'm not a significant contributor to the project, so I'll go along with whatever is decided. Have you considered dual-licensing GPL and Apache? It seems that Apache is incompatible with the GPL. Making the project incompatible with GPL projects seems like a step backward, IMO. JoshN

[Freerdp-devel] Vote for Apache license change

Regarding Marc-Andre's post on switching to the Apache License, I've looked at using that myself in the past for projects. Alternatively, I would look at the MIT License: that "may" permit some broader GPL usage. I've attached references for review... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Licens