From: Philipp M. H. <pm...@ti...> - 2001-11-29 10:56:50
Attachments:
xine.diff
|
Hello Guenter! Attached is a patch for xine-plugin, which: - converts config->lookup_str() to register_string() - converts config->set_str() to update_string() - adds xine and xineutils to the list of liked libraries That at least gets it compiled, but loding the xine-plugins fails with: load_plugins: cannot open demux plugin /usr/lib/xine/plugins/xineplug_dmx_asf.so: /usr/lib/xine/plugins/xineplug_dmx_asf.so: undefined symbol: formattag_to_buf_audio load_plugins: cannot open demux plugin /usr/lib/xine/plugins/xineplug_dmx_avi.so: /usr/lib/xine/plugins/xineplug_dmx_avi.so: undefined symbol: xine_xmalloc ... That's it for now, hope is helps. BYtE Philipp -- / / (_)__ __ ____ __ Philipp Hahn / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ pm...@ti... |
From: Robin K. <kom...@my...> - 2001-12-17 23:07:48
|
Just letting you know, I've grabbed the latest xine-plugin from the CVS and have starting hacking away at it. Does anyone have any objections to it being officially known as 'xinescape'? ^_^ In other news, pgx64vo 0.3.beta has been released. --Robin Kay-- http://www.gekkou.co.uk |
From: <bar...@t-...> - 2001-12-18 20:57:01
|
Hi Robin, On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Robin Kay wrote: > Just letting you know, I've grabbed the latest xine-plugin from the CVS > and have starting hacking away at it. Does anyone have any objections to > it being officially known as 'xinescape'? definitely better than "xine-plugin" (as there so many types of xine-plugins that name definitely was quite confusing). However, the ultimate name should also include mozilla ;> Cheers, Guenter -- time is a funny concept |
From: James <ja...@pi...> - 2001-12-18 22:34:22
|
[2001-12-18 21:56 +0100] Guenter Bartsch wrote: | Hi Robin, | | On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Robin Kay wrote: | | > Just letting you know, I've grabbed the latest xine-plugin from the CVS | > and have starting hacking away at it. Does anyone have any objections to | > it being officially known as 'xinescape'? | | definitely better than "xine-plugin" (as there so many types of | xine-plugins that name definitely was quite confusing). However, the | ultimate name should also include mozilla ;> | Xineilla Moxilla moxine ? -- The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. 6AD6 865A BF6E 76BB 1FC2 | www.piku.org.uk/public-key.asc E4C4 DEEA 7D08 D511 E149 | jjj.cvxh.bet.hx wn...@cv...t.hx (rot13'd) |
From: Daniel Caujolle-B. <seg...@cl...> - 2001-12-18 22:44:15
|
James wrote: > > [2001-12-18 21:56 +0100] Guenter Bartsch wrote: > > | Hi Robin, > | > | On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Robin Kay wrote: > | > | > Just letting you know, I've grabbed the latest xine-plugin from the CVS > | > and have starting hacking away at it. Does anyone have any objections to > | > it being officially known as 'xinescape'? > | > | definitely better than "xine-plugin" (as there so many types of > | xine-plugins that name definitely was quite confusing). However, the > | ultimate name should also include mozilla ;> > | > > Xineilla > Moxilla > moxine > > ? > Mozzarella ? ;-) -- 73's de Daniel, F1RMB. -=- Daniel Caujolle-Bert -=- seg...@cl... -=- -=- f1...@f1... (AMPR NET) -=- |
From: James <ja...@pi...> - 2001-12-20 00:28:20
|
[2001-12-18 23:42 +0100] Daniel Caujolle-Bert wrote: | > | definitely better than "xine-plugin" (as there so many types of | > | xine-plugins that name definitely was quite confusing). However, the | > | ultimate name should also include mozilla ;> | > | | > | Mozzarella ? | No, no... what about... <asbestos strength=10> MicroXine Xineternet Explorer </asbestos> >:) -- The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. 6AD6 865A BF6E 76BB 1FC2 | www.piku.org.uk/public-key.asc E4C4 DEEA 7D08 D511 E149 | jjj.cvxh.bet.hx wn...@cv...t.hx (rot13'd) |
From: Robin K. <kom...@my...> - 2001-12-19 01:46:50
|
> Xineilla > Moxilla > moxine > > ? Xinzilla --Robin Kay-- http://www.gekkou.co.uk |
From: Mark C. <mca...@ya...> - 2002-03-19 03:20:50
|
Is anybody else getting this error? this is xine-plugin cvs as of 10 minutes ago, on a RH 7.2 system and mozilla 0.9.2.1 mozilla NP_Initialize /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin: relocation error: /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/xineplugin.so: undefined symbol: xine_config_file_init -- ### Sig Here ### Disclaimer: No guarantee of fit or function given. If it don't fit then it won't function :-) |
From: James Courtier-D. <Ja...@su...> - 2002-03-28 23:01:58
|
xine-plugin problem When I go to http://www.on24.com to play audio news items, I get an error: - "This page contains information of a type (application/x-mplayer2) than can only be viewed with the appropriate Plug-in." I want xine to be able to play this audio stream which windows media player can play. Can anybody help ? I know very little about how plugins work. Currently the xine-plugin is installed and registered itself to play mpeg streams etc. Cheers James |
From: Andrei L. <a....@ed...> - 2002-03-29 00:27:09
|
Hello James. I have already included this mime type in latest patch for xine-plugin. Patch should be in xine-devel list somewhere. But shortly you can add line "application/x-mplayer2:asf,asx,asp: mplayer2" in the NPP_GetMimeDescription Andrei |
From: James Courtier-D. <Ja...@su...> - 2002-03-29 16:34:18
|
Andrei Lahun wrote: >Hello James. > >I have already included this mime type in latest patch for xine-plugin. >Patch should be in xine-devel list somewhere. >But shortly you can add line >"application/x-mplayer2:asf,asx,asp: mplayer2" in the NPP_GetMimeDescription > >Andrei > I tried that, but it still does not work with that web site. It starts xine, but tries to connect to the wrong destination port. Please go to http://www.on24.com and click on an audio story and test it. If you have a patch to fix it, please post it here, and I will check it into the xine-plugin cvs. Cheers James |
From: Andrei L. <Um...@ed...> - 2002-03-29 18:05:40
Attachments:
latest_mms_xine.patch
|
James the version of mms plugin in xine (parser) is too old. I have just tried with my latest version with your site and itis ok. Here is a patch. If itis ok for you can you please confirm. Andrei |
From: James Courtier-D. <Ja...@su...> - 2002-03-29 20:05:33
|
Andrei Lahun wrote: >James the version of mms plugin in xine (parser) is too old. >I have just tried with my latest version with your site and itis ok. >Here is a patch. If itis ok for you can you please confirm. > >Andrei > I checked in the changes, and www.on24.com now works. Is there any way what we could get xine to automatically download codecs and store them in ./.xine/codecs if it cannot find them on the current system ? I know this will probably only work for windows codecs, but it would be a help. The message about not having the correct codec gets quite lost with xine-plugin. Also, I would like to see a seek/play/stop/pause feature in xine-plugin. Cheers James |
From: <bar...@t-...> - 2002-04-01 21:38:40
|
Hi James, On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > Is there any way what we could get xine to automatically download codecs > and store them in ./.xine/codecs if it cannot find them on the current > system ? that would be a nice feature, but I guess that will be hard to do without breaking the GPL. If you make xine download codecs automatically you have to make sure you only download codecs released under a gpl-compatible license. Cheers, Guenter -- time is a funny concept |
From: KAY R. <kom...@my...> - 2002-04-02 20:08:23
|
> that would be a nice feature, but I guess that will be hard to do without > breaking the GPL. If you make xine download codecs automatically you have > to make sure you only download codecs released under a gpl-compatible > license. Non-GPL code can't link against GPL code, but surely that's different from GPL code linking against non-GPL code. 'xine' links with user supplied win32 codecs which may not be under the GPL. 'xine' links with Sun mediaLib. 'xine' links with pgx64vo. Should RealMedia ever be supported then 'xine' would link with the RealSystem libraries. -- Wishing you good fortune, --Robin Kay-- (komadori) |
From: <bar...@t-...> - 2002-04-03 07:38:09
|
Hi, On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, KAY Robin wrote: > Non-GPL code can't link against GPL code, but surely that's different from > GPL code linking against non-GPL code. I still think the GPL is broken either way > 'xine' links with user supplied win32 codecs which may not be under the > GPL. of course the user can link xine to whatever she/he wants, but still he/she is breaking the gpl. as long as this happens on a private computer this is imho no problem, but xine cannot do that "officially". BTW companies are not allowed to bundle xine with proprietary codecs as well (I had some discussion about this topic in private with companies in the past). > 'xine' links with Sun mediaLib. 'xine' links with pgx64vo. Should > RealMedia ever be supported then 'xine' would link with the RealSystem > libraries. all this cannot be done without breaking the gpl cheers, guenter -- time is a funny concept |
From: KAY R. <kom...@my...> - 2002-04-03 18:06:39
|
> > Non-GPL code can't link against GPL code, but surely that's different from > > GPL code linking against non-GPL code. > > I still think the GPL is broken either way Very true... So why is 'xine' licensed under it? "The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him.", Ulrich Drepper, 2001 -- Wishing you good fortune, --Robin Kay-- (komadori) |
From: Roderick C. <thu...@ev...> - 2002-04-03 18:41:18
|
Why is Xine GPL licensed and not under the LGPL? The LGPL allows linking from non-LGPL programs with LGPL code and the way around. On Wednesday 03 April 2002 20:06, you wrote: > > > Non-GPL code can't link against GPL code, but surely that's different > > > from GPL code linking against non-GPL code. > > > > I still think the GPL is broken either way > > Very true... So why is 'xine' licensed under it? > > "The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control > freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him.", Ulrich Drepper, > 2001 |
From: Michel L. <wa...@zo...> - 2002-04-03 19:30:20
|
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 08:40:33PM +0200, Roderick Colenbrander wrote: > Why is Xine GPL licensed and not under the LGPL? The LGPL allows > linking from non-LGPL programs with LGPL code and the way around. Because everyone does not want that. (Duh !) Cheers, -- Michel "Walken" LESPINASSE Is this the best that god can do ? Then I'm not impressed. |
From: <bar...@t-...> - 2002-04-03 20:10:50
|
Hi there, On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, KAY Robin wrote: > > > Non-GPL code can't link against GPL code, but surely that's different from > > > GPL code linking against non-GPL code. > > > > I still think the GPL is broken either way > > Very true... So why is 'xine' licensed under it? because the xine project is about free software? because some people think proprietary codecs are a bad idea? cheers, guenter -- time is a funny concept |
From: Christer P. <pa...@no...> - 2002-04-03 21:16:35
|
Guenter Bartsch wrote: > > of course the user can link xine to whatever she/he wants, but still > he/she is breaking the gpl. as long as this happens on a private computer > this is imho no problem, but xine cannot do that "officially". BTW > companies are not allowed to bundle xine with proprietary codecs as well > (I had some discussion about this topic in private with companies in the > past). > I'm not so sure about that. Clearly, any GPL'ed software running on top of a proprietary OS needs to be linked to proprietary libraries in some way or another. I think everyone agrees that the GPL is at least intended to allow this, as this is exactly the situation under which all GPL'ed software were forced to run before the event of GPL'ed operating systems. Even a GPL'ed OS needs to "link" in some way to proprietary firmware code. This issue has been thoroughly discussed in the context of binary-only Linux kernel modules See, for example, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt, where Linus Torvalds explains his stance with regards to this. The issue is obviously whether or not a proprietary piece of software could be considered a "derived work" of the GPL'ed software. This would certainly not be the case for VfW codecs, since those are obviously _not_ designed to work with Xine at all. A plugin using the Xine plugin API could, however, be considered a "derived work". -- Christer Palm |
From: <bar...@t-...> - 2002-04-03 22:31:44
|
Hi, On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Christer Palm wrote: > > of course the user can link xine to whatever she/he wants, but still > > he/she is breaking the gpl. > I'm not so sure about that. the GPL FAQ is quite clear about this issue: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins [...] If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. This means they must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license. [...] > This issue has been thoroughly discussed in the context of binary-only > Linux kernel modules See, for example, > http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt, where > Linus Torvalds explains his stance with regards to this. I personally consider statements from the fsf or RMS higher priority than Linus' when it comes to GPL issues ;> Cheers, Guenter -- time is a funny concept |
From: KAY R. <kom...@my...> - 2002-04-03 23:13:39
|
> [...] > If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to > each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single > program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. > This means they must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free > software license. > [...] For the record then:- The file contained in the pgx64vo package is intended, once converted into a series of hexadecimal digits and sung aloud, to form a pleasing musical composition. There are of course unconfirmed rumours that that the file is in fact valid SPARCv9 object code, supporting the plugin API of a certain open source media player, which is capable of accelerating the performance of said media player to a usable lavel on Sun workstations with PGX64 and PGX24 frame buffers. If you wish to use the pgx64vo hexadecimal song in such a fashion you must first obtain explicit written permission from all the contributors to the said media player to relicense the said media player under term permitting the use of the the pgx64vo plugin in the said fashion. -- Wishing you good fortune, --Robin Kay-- (komadori) |
From: Christer P. <pa...@no...> - 2002-04-08 11:32:04
|
Hi Guenther! Guenter Bartsch wrote: > > the GPL FAQ is quite clear about this issue: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins > > [...] > This is a quote from the link I provided - this is from Stallman himself: "I asked Richard to comment on several scenarios involving plug-ins explain whether or not they were in violation of the GPL. So far he as only addressed one and has effectively admitted a hole. This is the one I asked that he's responded to: [A] non-GPL'd plug-in writer writes a plug-in for a non-GPL'd program. Another author writes a GPL'd program making the first author's plug-ins compatible with his program. Are now the plug-in author's plug-ins now retroactively required to be GPL'd? His response: No, because the plug-in was not written to extend this program." This, IMO quite obvious, statement doesn't answer the question of whether a user would violate the GPL by using the clearly intentional feature of the GPL'ed program to combine, in runtime, the GPL'ed program with the proprietary 'plug-in'. On the other hand, it basically says that distributing a proprietary plug-in together with GPL'ed software is OK under these conditions. The question of whether or not a user is permitted to actually use them together could, IMO, clearly fall under 'Fair Use', since the user is merely using an intentional feature of the software specifically designed to allow this "illegal" combination. Bottom line is that it's wrong to say that this matter is "quite clear". It is definitely not. These are definitely grey, very complex, areas legally. -- Christer Palm |
From: James <ja...@pi...> - 2002-04-08 12:07:59
|
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:28:42PM +0200, Christer Palm wrote: | | His response: | No, because the plug-in was not written to extend this program." | | This, IMO quite obvious, statement doesn't answer the question of | whether a user would violate the GPL by using the clearly intentional | feature of the GPL'ed program to combine, in runtime, the GPL'ed program | with the proprietary 'plug-in'. On the other hand, it basically says | that distributing a proprietary plug-in together with GPL'ed software is | OK under these conditions. It does... According to this statement, there's nothing wrong about using (say) the Win32 DivX5 plugin with Xine, since the Win32 plugin wasn't written for Xine (it was written for Windows media Player). And since it wasn't written specifically for Xine, it doesn't matter what licence it uses, Xine can use it without requiring the plugin to be GPL. If the Win32 DivX5 plugin was written specifically for Xine but not GPL'd, then there'd be a problem. The only problem is if the licence for the DivX5 plugin (or whatever) says "You may only use this on a Windows OS with Media Player". But that's the user's responsibility to check, not Xine's. | Bottom line is that it's wrong to say that this matter is "quite clear". | It is definitely not. These are definitely grey, very complex, areas | legally. Seems fairly straight-forward to me... <-- Insert standard "I am not a lawyer blah blah" rubbish here --> -- I will not barf unless I'm sick 6AD6 865A BF6E 76BB 1FC2 | www.piku.org.uk/public-key.asc E4C4 DEEA 7D08 D511 E149 | www.piku.org.uk wn...@cv...t.hx (rot13'd) |