On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:46, Guenter Bartsch wrote:
> hi bastien,
> On 11/01, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > > Right. If you wanted fame, you should have used a license with
> > > > advertising clause...
> > >
> > > ...so you believe that giving proper credit is only appropriate if the
> > > license enforces it?
> > No, I'm just saying that in Totem, your copyrights and credits are in there.
> > If you feel that me changing the logo isn't appropriate and you want the
> > xine name to be more user-visible, I can do that.
> the final decision is up to you, of course :)
> > Removing the logo feature from the engine was one way to "enforce" that,
> huh? giving frontends more freedom is enforcing them to do something?!?
> actually the logo (and the automatically generated OSD) was removed for
> one reason: advanced frontends (e.g. audio/video processing
> applications) would get pretty annoyed by these - plus it doesn't really
> make sense with the streams api. Later it also turned out that by
> removing the logo from the engine a lot of hacks and tweak where no
> longer needed so the engine code gets cleaner and hopefully more stable.
> > but it's not very nice to front-ends developers.
> it's 3 lines more for playback-only frontends (but those have more
> flexibility in return, e.g. can choose to display different logos
> depending on the skin selected etc.) and -x0000 lines of tweaking code
> for advanced frontends.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. The way you put it, I saw a cause to
consequence behaviour. If it wasn't for that reason, then please accept
my apologies. Be clearer as to *why* you did something next time ;)
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
there is no longer anything to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery