On Jan 25, 1:07 am, Homer <use...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Why isn't Moonlight licensed under GPLv3?
> > Because whoever writes the software gets to choose the license they
> > use.
> > I have not researched the GPL3 in depth myself
> You must be the only Free Software developer on earth who hasn't, then.
> It's not exactly the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It's a fairly short, and
> quite unambiguous license, set out in clear and concise terms. It's has
> also been available for nearly two years, and even before that in draft
Considering the fact that Roy Schestowitz himself was unable to
understand the implications of the GPL, as evidenced here:
I wouldn't be so quick to judge someone who actually wants to take the
proper time to understand it fully and properly.
> > so before I commit to it, I need to spend time learning it, and
> > understanding what that means for the software I write. I know that
> > Linus does not like it, and for now his opinion on the license
> > weights on my decision.
> So you've chosen to ignore something you don't yet understand, because
> someone else holds a negative opinion of it.
No, he's simply decided to postpone licensing his software under the
GPLv3 until he has the time to decide his position on it. What's the
rush? Gtk+ and Qt are also under LGPLv2, the Linux kernel is under
GPLv2, and a lot of other FLOSS software is staying under the [L]GPLv2
> Isn't that rather narrow-minded?
Just because he's not a knee-jerk reactionist like yourself doesn't
mean he's narrow-minded. I'm not even sure how you can even draw that
conclusion. I suspect it was just a personal attack?
> >> This seems to preclude distributing Moonlight on a LiveCD or other
> >> immutable medium, which seems like a rather odd restriction.
> >> Perhaps you could explain.
> > You can upgrade Moonlight if you obtain it from a LiveCD.
> That's an evasive and misleading response, since obtaining Moonlight via
> the medium is not the issue, it's the ability to upgrade the distributed
> software /in place/, which on an immutable medium, like a LiveCD distro,
> is not possible, and thus contravenes this "anti-embedded" clause you've
> added to the (otherwise) GPL license for Moonlight.
As we say here in Texas,
Boy, you got less brains than a woodpecker pecking away at an
aluminum telephone pole.
As you know, Miguel de Icaza is an authoritative voice on Moonlight.
He and his company own the copyrights. If he says that you don't have
to license Moonlight from him or Novell to distribute it on a LiveCD,
then you don't have to license it from him or Novell to distribute it
on a LiveCD; end of discussion.
> And again, mainly for the benefit of those who lack either the capacity
> or patience to try to build software from sources, I ask you to give me
> some idea of when a pre-compiled binary of Moonlight, linked to ffmpeg,
> will become available?
Considering that you and your friend, Roy Schestowitz, like to think
of yourselves as patent experts, I'm surprised that you've failed to
realize that ffmpeg is likely to infringe on patents held by the MPEG-
>From the FFmpeg FAQ:
Q: Since FFmpeg is licensed under the LGPL, is it perfectly alright
to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. Sure, the LGPL allows you to
incorporate the code. However, there have been cases where companies
have used FFmpeg in their projects, usually for such capabilities as
superior MPEG-4 decoding. These companies found out that once you
start trying to make money from certain technologies, the alleged
owners of the technologies will come after their protection money.
Most notably, MPEG-LA (licensing authority) is vigilant and diligent
about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
Your dishonesty has already been called out on the BoycottNovell
website where even the site's founder, Shane Coyle, agrees that you
and Roy are being dishonest in this matter.
Give it up already, your continued antics are pathetic.