As customers once had to download and install Quicktime for Windows to
use a wide variety of media in Revolution/Livecode Standalones under
Windows (XP, 7, 8.x, 10, 11), when QT for Win became obsolete, we just
switched to directing customers to download and install LAV Filters
instead. They do this as a separate install, done by the end user. So
far, this has not seemed to be an issue or inhibited adoption. It also
does not run afoul of any licensing issues with embedding LAV Filters in
a LC standalone.
Regardless, if you want media file parity with macOS on Windows in
Livecode and do not want to wait for whatever dp version of LC 10 might
have MMF in it, then you need to add a codec pack for DirectShow. There
are other options for additional DirectShow codecs to LAV Filters. I
can't recall any of them - just that we reviewed a bunch, most of which
were commercial and required licensing. LAV Filters was reliable,
functional, easy to install, and free. I'm not endorsing it for your
application or anyone else's, just noting what worked for us.
On 7/8/2024 1:28 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
Paul Dupuis wrote:
There ARE methods to compress and store a 3rd party library
or application as a property in a Livecode standalone and
have the standalone on start up check (if there is a file
... or if there is a folder ...) for the app's presence and
if not present, install it by uncompressing and writing it
as a bnfile to the install location.
...
First, you may want to manually install LAV Filters and see
if it has the codecs for the media formats you want.
LAV Filters appear to be distributed under GPL v2:
https://github.com/Nevcairiel/LAVFilters/blob/master/COPYING
This invites an interesting exploration of the boundaries of GPL
rights/responsibilities inheritance: does distributing GPL components within an
app require the app distributing them to also be GPL?
I've seen many cases the other way around, FOSS projects like Ubuntu where some
users can benefit from prioprietary packages like NVidia device drivers. Ubuntu
and others seem content to have resolved the issue by not including components
with incompatible licenses in their distributions, instead providing links the
user may choose to follow to install them.
But the case in this thread is the inverse, a proprietary system with embedded
distribution of Free and Open Source components. I haven't seen this before, so
I did a quick search to see how others have handled it. Here are a few of
those discussions:
"Is it legal to use GPL code in a proprietary, closed-source program by putting it
in a separate, standalone program?"
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7078/is-it-legal-to-use-gpl-code-in-a-proprietary-closed-source-program-by-putting-i
"Distributing a proprietary application together with GPL software"
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/211250/distributing-a-proprietary-application-together-with-gpl-software
"Can I use GPL software in a commercial application"
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/47032/can-i-use-gpl-software-in-a-commercial-application
"Can I use GPL, LGPL, MPL licensed packages with my application and make it closed
source?"
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/125606/can-i-use-gpl-lgpl-mpl-licensed-packages-with-my-application-and-make-it-close
"Proprietary software using GPL modules"
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1459/proprietary-software-using-gpl-modules
"Can I use GPL libraries in a closed source project if only the output is
distributed?"
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-use-gpl-libraries-in-a-closed-source-project-if-only-the-output-is-distrib
Spoiler: no one in those discussions has a definitive answer, but there is a
general trend toward USING GPL components being viewed as okay but drawing the
line at DISTRIBUTING those GPL components within a proprietary app.
And given both the rarity and the subtlety of details in such circumstancs,
even the GPL FAQ more or less punts on this question:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ManyDifferentLicenses
Of course I'm not an attorney, and even if I were I'm not contracted as your
attorney, so nothing I write can be construed as legal advice.
But as someone who has a personal hobby of reading IP case law, and has contractual
requirements in most of my professional work to demonstrate a reasonable good-faith
effort to help my clients avoid potential risks with IP licensing, I tend to err on the
side of "When in doubt, leave it out."
In cases where the best way to handle someone else's work is unclear, I often
find it most useful to get clarification from the author of the work. As the
copyright holder, they would be in a position to grant, or deny, specific use
cases.
--
Richard Gaskin
FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
