[MPlayer-users] What is it: http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/homepage/

[Gábor Lénárt]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
> Yes.  This is the fatal flaw with the GPL.  The GNuts who hasn't read the
> GPL do not realize that:
>   1) The only reason why ANY propriatary drivers (like video..) can be linked with
>      the linux kernel is because Linus made a specific exemption for this case.
>   2) GPL programs cannot legally use propriatary software.  So, this makes GPLed
>      java programs that cannot be legally run with the SUN jvm, or in this case,
>      a strict GPLed mplayer cannot legally use any nonGPLed win32 dlls.


Ehhhh, it's not that simple imho. And I think GPL is great. Arpi thinks it's
not. It's his opinion and this is my. No problem. But IMHO GPL is about source
level things (but correct me if I would be wrong). So, you can't compile
non GPL source into GPL Linux kernel. But imho it's not a problem to RUN
a COMPILED (java virtual bytecode) with a non-GPL java VM. And you can
compile then shell (without any source) a program compiled with GPL compiler.
[Kernel modules links against kernel so it's okey to insert a non-GPL kernel
module on runtime]

Yes, GPL often seems to be restrict, but it only protects the rights of
authors. Of course everything in this world has got disadvantages as well ...
 
> > It has nothing about code stealing. It should allow using binary code for
> > GPL program, but shouldn't allow using GPL for non-GPL (closedsource) stuff.
> 
> 'binary' is such a loose term nowadays.   All modifications to GPLed code should
> be GPLed, stuff that is separate should be allowed to coexist.

So, why is it legal to:

1. shell web services provided by GPL web server, server side scripting
languages and so on?
2. run non-GPL stuffs under Linux which can reach API of Linux kernel via
int 0x80 (or via libc, but I don't know if libc is GPL or LGPL, so I don't
want to mention it now)

> > There are lots of projects suffers from this limitation, and have to use
> > much worse gpl implementations than better but non-gpl libs/codes.
> > Forcing GPL this way is like M$ strategy...
> > "use GPL or die"
> yup... it has a tendency to promote inferior/mediocre stuff.

If you want to compete with m$ (so you want your program to be used not only
by die hard hackers) you must protect yourself ...

> > > And about the problem you've had with the nonGPL code in the kernel. I don't
> > > think it's impossible to compile nonGPL code into the kernel (maybe with
> > > some hacking) or you can make initrd and let the proprietary code be in the
> > > module when you're booting.
> > yes i know. but i'm not a kernel hacker, i can't do it, and other people
> > using the drivers can't do it. initrd is an option but not the best.
> 
> it would be impossible in a strict GPLed kernel.

Why? And then what about GNU kernel (Hurd). IMHO when FSF planed to make
a system with utilities, kernel, compilers, ... for the world they knew
what they done ... GNU would have been a complete OS with own kernel (Hurd),
and other stuffs (like gcc, and many common GNU stuffs nowdays). And IMHO
they created GPL to be flexible enough to be able to run even non-free
softwares under their GNU. And GNU's kernel (Hurd) is GPL.

 
> Arnd Marijnissen <grimm at cistron.nl> wrote:
> > 
> > The nice thing about the GPL, in this respect is that nobody is _forcing_
> > you to use GPL'ed code. 
> 
> MYTH.  GPL FORCES you to use GPLed components.  You cannot pick and choose
> with GPL - it's all or nothing.

And it's good. This point of GPL is for avoding stolen GPL code by others.
Of course this means you can't use non-GPL source parts in your GPL project
either.

I thing mplayer wouldn't have got problems to be fully GPL project.
At source level AFAIK only opendivx part is used which is non-GPL.
Correct me, if there're others ... Loading binary objects runtime is not
a GPL issue ... Maybe you can't distribute DLLs and others together with
mplayer, but you can release GPL mplayer source and binaries, and separated
codec packages. For example.

But we SHOULD choose a license now! MPlayer's codebase comtains many GPL
parts ... So if we decide mplayer not to be GPL, we should rewrite all
GPL parts or search other libs whose licenses are good enough for us.
But now, we breaks both of GPL and OpenDivX licenses imho, and other things.
And the worst: we couldn't say what type of license mplayer has!!!!!!!
At once, mplayer's homepage says it's GPL ... So we must DECIDE. Now ....

- Gabor