[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Help wanted to evolve KDEs music players
From:       Stefan Bruens <stefan.bruens () rwth-aachen ! de>
Date:       2015-08-05 0:50:51
Message-ID: 57563997.6p6ROZ335H () pebbles ! site
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 05 August 2015 00:42:24 Dāvis Mosāns wrote:
> 2015-08-04 22:45 GMT+03:00 Stefan Bruens <stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de>:
> > On Tuesday 04 August 2015 19:29:27 Dāvis Mosāns wrote:
> >> 2015-08-04 19:04 GMT+03:00 Thomas Lübking <thomas.luebking@gmail.com>:
> >> > On Dienstag, 4. August 2015 17:41:35 CEST, Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> >> >> since the free decoder apparently isn't available anymore
> >> > 
> >> > http://www.oneplaydirect.com/oneplay/oneplay-mp3-decoder/
> >> > 
> >> > Most stuff ain't for free, though (and unlike the mp3 thing, binary
> >> > only),
> >> > but still "legal" (even in the US)
> >> > 
> >> > http://www.oneplaydirect.com/oneplay/oneplay-codec-pack/
> >> > 
> >> > So the difference is that you can use gstreamer to legally playback all
> >> > cool stuff (but of course everyone with a brain is going to use
> >> > gst-ugly)
> >> 
> >> LOL, from that oneplay mp3 page "Issues to be aware of"
> >> 
> >> > if you ship GStreamer with our binary MP3 plug-in, you need to be sure
> >> > that
> >> > you don't ship any GPL-licensed plug-ins that could end up being used
> >> > together with the MP3 plug-in, as this would be a violation of the GPL.
> >> > You also need to make sure you don't ship any GPL-licensed players
> >> > which
> >> > would use this plug-in.
> >> 
> >> So basically even if you wanted to use it legally you can't use most of
> >> players as almost everything is GPL... of course you don't have to abide
> >> by
> >> it but then what was point of trying to do it legally as you can do it
> >> easier in other ways...
> > 
> > Learn to read.
> > 
> > "If you *ship* GStreamer ..."
> > 
> > It is completely legal to *use* the binary Fluendo plugin with a GPLed
> > player.
> Nope, it's not legal (I'm not lawyer) but even if you don't distribute
> you still violate
> GPL as you can't mix GPL with GPL incompatible license. Only difference is
> that no one will know that you violate GPL, same as pirating...

You are allowed to modify GPLed software in any way you want, the GPL only 
applies to distributed software.

See e.g. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
 
> Look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
> 
> > I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system.
> > I have no permission to use that software except what the GPL gives me.
> > Can I do this?
> > 
> >> You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The
> >> goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute,
> >> understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered
> >> software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the
> >> GPL-covered software non-free too.

And here you have *again* removed an important part of the text you cited. 
Fixed that for you:
---
A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that 
program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be 
released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to 
make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, 
and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make.
---
*if it is released at all*!

> >> However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
> >> alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure
> >> that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they
> >> are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single
> >> program.
> >> 
> >> The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software
> >> is
> >> partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is
> >> this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively
> >> two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate
> >> programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
> 
> When GPL licensed media player is linked with GStreamer which dynamically
> loads that non-free library, it all would become a single program covered
> by GPL and it's not legally possible to do so because of incompatible
> license you are violating that media player's GPL license because you
> weren't granted a license for
> it to use it with non-free code.
> 
> > And unfortunately you quoted only part of the text, and left out the other
> > important part:
> > ----
> > Fortunately, most GStreamer plug-ins are LGPL, and many of the playback
> > applications come with licensing terms that allow them to be used with
> > non-
> > free plug-ins. The Totem media player and the Banshee music player are two
> > examples.
> > ----
> 
> most? *citation needed*, also I was talking only about GPL'd players.

http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html
---
We require that all code going into our core packages is LGPL. For the plugin 
code, we require the use of the LGPL for all plugins written from scratch or 
linking to external libraries. 
---

The linked plugin may be subject to a more restrictive license because the 
plugin links to e.g. a GPLed library. One example is the x264 plugin.

Ffmpeg is LGPL as shipped most distributions (they wont link it against x264 
or x265). Thus the GStreamer ffmpeg plugin is LGPL.

Even GPLed players may have an explicit GStreamer plugin exception.

Regards,

Stefan

-- 
Stefan Brüns  /  Bergstraße 21  /  52062 Aachen
home: +49 241 53809034     mobile: +49 151 50412019
work: +49 2405 49936-424

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]