Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
19th January 2014, 23:17 | #43 | Link |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,901
|
I will ask IanB to please restore the exemption. It's crazy that he would put a dam in the river like this.
Can't Avisynth+ re-engineer a header from the original exempted one? Why do you have to derive from IanB's stuff? Let him fork a dead end if that is what he wants. Last edited by Guest; 19th January 2014 at 23:20. |
20th January 2014, 00:04 | #44 | Link | |
AVS+ Dev
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 359
|
Quote:
I'll edit my previous post accordingly.
__________________
AviSynth+ |
|
20th January 2014, 00:55 | #46 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 270
|
Because we already did (ultim wanted to contribute to the 2.6 codebase before creating the fork).
We want to support new colorspaces and keep compatibility with existing 2.6 plugins. Starting from 2.5.8 codebase or rewriting everything IanB wrote during these 6 years would delay new features quite noticeably and that's a lot more important to the end users than some silly licensing question. |
20th January 2014, 01:01 | #47 | Link |
...?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,420
|
For what it's worth, the 2.6-ish extended version of avisynth_c.h from x264 does have the exemption intact (source). Probably because it was done externally and wasn't subject to this particular circumstance - the one in AviSynth's CVS is still the old 2.5 version.
|
20th January 2014, 10:41 | #48 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
|
I'm far from law expert, but still think that interfaces are not subject to licensing restrictions (structures, function prototypes,...). For example, does linux kernel need to explicitly grant the permission for every interface to allow its usage in proprietary kernel modules?
I completely agree with TurboPascal7 that licensing restrictions can only harm Avisynth. Personally if I had to choice between going GPL or removing plugin that I don't want to be GPL – result will be removal 100% of the time. And I believe we do have several plugins removed by authors because they were threatened later with GPL stuff. |
20th January 2014, 12:16 | #49 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
In the header I see three copyrights lines, either they are wrong (and he wrote every line of the header himself) or he should have needed consent from all the contributors to redistribute their code with a different license. Last edited by Sapo84; 20th January 2014 at 12:24. |
|
20th January 2014, 12:52 | #50 | Link | |||
AVS+ Dev
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 359
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
AviSynth+ |
|||
20th January 2014, 15:14 | #51 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
|
Quote:
Actually, all that "GPL purity" is one big lie, at least on Windows. While it's considered unacceptable for non-GPL code to use GPL libraries, it's totally Ok for GPL code to even statically link with non-GPL libraries. Our official Avisynth is compiled with VC6 which statically and dynamically link GPL code of Avisynth with absolutely non-GPL code of standard C/C++ library of VC6. And what? No one ever said anything. How Avisynth using external plugins is different to Avisynth using C/C++ library? |
|
20th January 2014, 15:43 | #52 | Link | |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,100
|
the gpl is a silly license that nobody complies with, partly because it's actually incredibly difficult to actually be fully compliant, and partly because nobody cares
I really have no idea why people keep choosing it, especially for libraries. I guess they haven't really understood what it actually means. Quote:
However, if you distribute mscvr*.dll together with your GPL plugin, you're technically violating the GPL. By the way, did you know that the exemption in the Avisynth header still requires authors of closed source plugins to distribute the full source code of Avisynth with their plugins? As I said, nobody (except maybe the FSF) really complies with the GPL fully. It's way too difficult to be compliant. Last edited by TheFluff; 20th January 2014 at 15:46. |
|
20th January 2014, 15:58 | #53 | Link | |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Quote:
(The same way, you, as the copyright holder, may decide that using the "interface" header files of your application in some thrid-party applications is not considered a "derived work")
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 20th January 2014 at 16:07. |
|
20th January 2014, 17:30 | #54 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
|
Quote:
Quote:
But it won't be automagically granted if you just stick GPL license with your work and not actually word this approval, right? |
||
20th January 2014, 21:46 | #55 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 270
|
rean
So basically you want avs+ to come up with a new API? That is planned but only after features like MT and high bitdepth processing are implemented, since they will affect the API considerably. I kinda hope(d) we can solve this issue by simply talking to avisynth developers because come on, it's clear that GPL does not work in avs. Unfortunately IanB seems to be ignoring the question. Last edited by TurboPascal7; 20th January 2014 at 21:50. |
20th January 2014, 23:20 | #56 | Link | ||
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Quote:
Linking LGPL'd code into a ClosedSource application as a DLL or SO file is generally accepted, while linking it statically is not. As far as the GPL is concerned, both cases are not allowed anyway. Quote:
Even if you avoid linking against the Visual Studio C-Runtimes, which indeed is possible, you still need to use the Win32 API (Kernel32.dll and friends) for fundamental stuff like I/O and memory management. Consequently, it wouldn't make much sense if any software author would need to explicitly add an exception for something that is required anyway - no matter what. Last but not least: The intent of the GPL is to prevent GPL'd code from getting "assimilated" into ClosedSource applications - not to put restrictions on what the GPL'd application is allowed to do...
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
||
21st January 2014, 00:37 | #57 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
|
LoRd_MuldeR, as I remember, x264 used to be sources-only software without official binaries due to legal stuff. What looks logical, obvious and required from the view of normal sane person, is not so from the point of law.
The intent of GPL is to consume other open source software and prevent development of everything outside of GPL. |
21st January 2014, 01:02 | #58 | Link | ||
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Quote:
The GPL explicitly does allow redistribution of binaries (as long as the sources are provided). It also explicitly does allow commercial use. So there's no problem here at all. However, if an application uses patented technology, such as H.264, you may still need to pay patent royalties to the patent holders - not the software author. Quote:
In other words: It ensures that OpenSource remains OpenSource. Thus, grabbing somebody's OpenSource code and turning it into a CloseSource software is prevented. The intent obviously can not be to create a piece of software that is useless on most platforms, because it's no longer allowed to load the required fundamental system/runtime libraries
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 21st January 2014 at 01:13. |
||
21st January 2014, 02:12 | #59 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 270
|
That's more like LGPL and other licenses that require you to share changes to the OpenSource codebase. GPL is more like a plague - if you touch anything with it, you're finished. You have to share all your code that might be completely unrelated to the library. Code so bad that you don't want anyone to look at it because it's too embarassing. Or maybe code that helps you make some money. Looks like forced freedom if you ask me.
|
21st January 2014, 02:33 | #60 | Link | |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,100
|
Quote:
tl;dr: license your stuff with 2-clause BSD or make it proprietary, you're most likely never going to be able to actually enforce anything other than that anyway |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|