I think that if FreePV gets integrated in VLC or other open
source player the interest on the project would grow,
other thing is to create a own FreePV format,
FreePV has the advantage that it can uses the
video card and it looks much better than flash
or java based viewers.
On 3/5/08, Bruno Postle <bruno@postle.net> wrote:
On Wed 05-Mar-2008 at 15:41 +0100, harghh wrote:
>Is the LGPL a good choice to ease adoption of FreePV and attract
>LGPL has "virus like" aspects, especially :
>- what is considered "derivative work" and which automatically transform
>all code to (L)GPL
>- distribution of any software + LGPL software in the same installer can
>be considered a "derivative work"

I think you are confused about the LGPL, nobody could read this
license and infer either of these things (it isn't a virus either).

>Would it be possible to license FreePV in another copyleft open source
>I believe this can help to increase FreePV usage in more projects and
>improve it.

I think that FreePV adoption is slowed by:

1. Nobody knowing about it - A release would be a good thing.
2. QuickTimeVR using the same mime-type as QuickTime-video,
requiring both to be handled by the same application.

Unlikely but possible is that developers are turned off by the LGPL
_not_ being the license that you think it is.


This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Freepv-devel mailing list