On 17.4.2010, at 12.29, Anders Waldenborg wrote: > juhovh/master > > This static thing is strange? Are they doing some kind of magic > when compiling? Can we do the same magic to be as close to > upstream as possible?
Nothing weird in the way they compile, only defines in "config.h" and I didn't notice any magic when I tried to find some. If I add "-Wall" to the official compiler parameters I get loads of "declared 'static' but never defined", so all I can say is that it looks like their code relies on gcc not making static functions really static or something. The static keyword is not even used consistently in the code, but I welcome some solution, it's ugly patching. > Can any of our changes be sent upstream? Only upstream contact information I've found is: Commercial non-GPL licensing of this software is possible. For more info contact Nero AG through [email protected]. >From what I know corporations, and especially their lawyers, are usually >careful about their IP, and this is dual-licensed software. If they would >accept my patch I believe I would at least need to sign a contract >transferring my copyright to them. I might be wrong, but I'm also not very >interested in finding out. The mp4ff code has been there for 5 years and this >was the first time for a need for pulling upstream, if you check the changes >most of it is simply removing DRM support. Back in 2005 the open source faad2 project was virtually dead, but Nero seemed to revive it later and even make some releases. That's why our original mp4ff was forked from CVS and not a release. But even back then the only contact information was Nero AG sales division for their proprietary AAC codec, which is also advertised on the official FAAC/FAAD2 page. So the comments are valid, but I'm just not interested myself. Juho -- _______________________________________________ Xmms2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xmms.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xmms2-devel
