I agree with just about everything you said here, including the danger of
alternative licenses. Back in the old days (Amiga time if anyone remember)
everything was released as "public domain", and I guess GPL is what public
domain programmers do when they grow up :-)
We support/use the RFB protocol as described in the January 1998 document,
with no further extensions or modifications.
Unfortunatly our OS is not one of the mentioned (it's called Nucleus Plus)
and our hardware and software is so specialized for videoconferencing
(encoding and decoding ITU standards like H320/H323) that I think it would
be of little use for others to base any work on it. My point is not to "get
something for free/not share" or profit from other people's work, we really
just wish not to be "shut out" from continuing to support enhanced RFB
protocols in the future.
best regards,
Stig
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew van der
> Stock
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFB Protocol 4.0 - encodings wanted
>
>
> Anyway, I'm hearing that people need portable encryption and decent
> authentication on all platforms, including handhelds. I think
> that it is now
> likely that we attempt to revise the #2 auth mechanism to
> something decent
> will occur within the current source base, rather than rely
> on external
> linkages (such as openssl, etc).
>
> Do you want to let me know the protocol of your RFB 3.3, or
> at least state
> which encodings/extra verbs you used so that they can be
> marked as reserved
> in the doco?
>
> Most of the time, asking the copyright holder for a re-license under
> specific terms is the best approach. If someone came to me to
> ask about
> pnm2ppa under license <blah>, I'd be willing to listen, at
> least. I need to
> go and ask Tim Norman (the original developer) as well.
> Things like QT were
> relicensed due to people asking. Although I use NetBSD/alpha,
> BSD licenses
> do have a downside, which is that things can easily disappear into
> proprietary land and never come out again. At least with the
> GPL that tends
> not to happen so much. If your embedded platform is QNX or
> WindRiver or one
> of the BSDs (like Ipso), and you're providing some service
> via VNC on top of
> that, what's so wrong with releasing VNC for that platform as a public
> service? It's not as if that's where the money is. The money
> in embedded
> stuff is selling widgets or licensing a complete package for
> someone else to
> sell the widgets to consumers, not the tools (cf gcc). VNC
> should just be a
> portion, not the whole value proposition.
>
> Andrew
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stig A. Olsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:50 PM
> Subject: RE: RFB Protocol 4.0 - encodings wanted
>
>
> > Just a side note here: My company has just released a new
> software version
> > for our videoconferencing equipment that support a VNC
> client (RFB 3.3).
> > Since VNC is GPL we naturally had to handcode everything
> from scratch
> based
> > on the RFB documentation (we can't release the source since
> we're using a
> > single linked image that contains source code from other
> vendors, such as
> > the embedded operating system - and we surely don't want to
> violate the
> > GPL).
> >
> > I think that getting more and more support for VNC is a
> "good thing", so I
> > just hope that further RFB releases do not make too
> extensive use of other
> > full GPL'ed packages that will be "close to impossible" to
> recode for more
> > specialized targets. If one could try to use a bit more
> liberal licenses
> > (such as LGPL or even BSD) I think that would help a lot.
> We're absolutely
> > not trying to capitalize on GPL based software, we just
> thought that VNC
> was
> > the best thing out there to get this kind of support for
> our systems (also
> > since we're then not strictly tied to the Windows platform
> when it comes
> to
> > the server side).
> >
> > best regards,
> > Stig A. Olsen
> > www.tandberg.net
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tristan
> > > Richardson
> > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:58 AM
> > > To: Andrew van der Stock; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: RFB Protocol 4.0 - encodings wanted
> > >
> > >
> > > We already use RFB version 4.x in some of our projects.
> > > We're now developing
> > > version 5.0 of the protocol which is a substantial change
> > > from the version 3
> > > protocols. It would be good to coordinate over what version
> > > number you choose
> > > for your new protocol so that we don't release incompatible
> > > protocols which
> > > claim to be the same version number. That would be bad :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Tristan
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> > to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
