On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Nils Faerber wrote:
> No they don't want to incorporate it that way. They have a bad encoder that
> is coupled via DLL into their program and want to replace it with a better
> one. Lame is one choice.
> Let get this straight: They want to use Lame in oder to support free
> development but cannot put all their stuff under GPL. They will give full
> credit, include the sources and everything...
Not that I mind commercal software using free stuff, but I kind of take
issue with "They want to use Lame in oder to support free development", I
have a very hard time beliving this.
You said yourself "They have a bad encoder that is coupled via DLL into
their program"..
Sounds like they dont want to spend the $$ on a good encoder, so they want
to use lame to enhance their product.
According to the FSF (well RMS at least), the GPL is best used on programs
that are unique, while the lesser GPL is good for more commidity programs.
Remember, using the GPL is a political statement: It is better for the
good of socity in general if most software is free (freedom not price).
People who just want to make free (beer) software use the X11 license or
the like.
Now, mp3 encoding is a commidity program. BUT, the price of the commercial
encoder, and the poor job of the other free encoders puts lame into a
class by itself (FAST, Good (not best) quality, free).
Now, the lame authors need to ask themselves: "Do we want to use the
software we devloped to help increase the amount of free (freedom)
software in the world?"
Providing users with high quality software is NOT the intention of the GPL.
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure users have the FREEDOM to modify and
improve their software (thus yealding high quality software as a frequent
side effect). The GPL is also about giving other GPLed (and compatible
licenced) software an advantage over commercial offerings, so that more
people will have a non-freedom reason to use them. I.e. the free software
might not be the best today, but if people use it, it will become the
best.
Don't tell us that the CAN'T make the software GPLed. The only thing that
could stop them is code they licensed from elseware, not my falut for
their lack of forsight. Perhaps it's a good idea for them to not GPLed
(not all software products can be profitable when GPLed), but thats not
really an issue. The fact is, you can still make a TON of money selling
software that is GPLed (and support, mods, etc), for most software.
If you want to use a free encoder engine, then use blade (it's LGPLed).
Personally, I'd like to see the company not permitted to link to Lame, so
that a company (or group) which is producing software that preserves our
freedom to change (and share) our software has an inherit advantage over
your software.
If your product has a niche market, GPLing wont do much good, but it wont
hurt (i.e. all of it's users don't talk or are competors) much.
Call me a freesoftware commie if you want. I don't have anything against
commercial software though, I just think that it's seldom the right
solution, and I want to see GPLed solutions 'win' because they benifit all
of us more.
> > /jp (Who thinks it would be great if Lame became more used, esp. if
> > BladeEnc(LGPL:ed) is the other alternative ;))
> Oh! BladeDLL is LGPL?
> One more point to do it ;)
> We should ask Richard Stallman if splitting the license at compile time is
> possible at all... I honestly do not know.
Yes, please use blade. :)
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
