[OT] RE: [xine-user] MPlayer (no not a flame!)

[Rashkae <ra...@we...>]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:


>I thought the whole reason for opensource, is so people share your code.
>It there is nothing in the source files specifically saying other wise,
>people will just copy it, and use it in other projects.


Woa Dude, you deserved to be hit on the head with a big clue stick for
that one.

Just because source code is provided, that does not waive copyright. (It
doesn't even imply a right to copy either.)... Fact: If there is
nothing in the source files specifically saying you can copy it, you
can't.


Furthermore, by placing copied code in a "GPL" Project, other people who
don't bother to check "at the source" will just copy the code in their
own GPL projects. If this kind of problem goes unchecked, a large
number of projects could then be polluted by copyright violations.

This is why the FSF is so annoyingly hard ass about owning the original
copyright for each bit of code that ever goes into any of the GNU
software. Imagine if you will, what would happen if some "information
wants to be free" yuppie got a hold of Windows Source code (very
available), and copied parts of it into other Free Software projects!!


The attitude that "if I can see the source, I should be able to use it
and put under whatever license I want", is *way* dangerous. Open
source, though a good thing IMNSHO, is not synonymous with 'software
libre.'

That being said, it's easy to see how this situation was an honest
mistake. To say that Mplayer plays footloose with licenses is a *huge*
understatement. At this rate, it's going to take them years to have a
legal Mplayer distribution of any kind. (Disclaimer: this statement
based on conjecture with no verified facts. Feel free to correct me,
but flames will be sent to /dev/null. I already know that I don't know
what I'm talking about, thank you very much.)