Re: [gst-devel] Re: Helix Player virtual team meeting

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:55, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> > > How hard can it be to
> > > a) make binary-only codecs freely available without clickthrough license
> > 
> > Very.  We have very specific licenses to our codecs, and we're
> > contractually bound to specific terms.  Moreover, as stated above, we
> > don't make money on codecs.  We *pay* money for codecs.  We make money
> > off of Helix, so we want people to use Helix.
> > 
> > > b) write a GPL/BSD/Real License/... API and library for using them
> > 
> > So that you don't have to use Helix?  And why would we do that if our
> > goal is for you to use Helix?
> 
> I think, if Helix is a super-master-class media library, we'll end up
> using it. If the whole thing is Free. (We're talking deep-future here,
> of course.)
> 
> If gstreamer trumps helix, we'll end up using gstreamer. In Open Source
> software, the way to get people to buy-in to the technology is by being
> the best. Holding the codecs hostage to a proprietary license where they
> can only be used by helix won't get people to develop helix because
> writing software that _avoids_ the use of proprietary licenses is what
> keeps them ticking.

Hrm. They just legally can't release some of the codecs, for contractual
or other reasons. That's hardly 'holding them hostage'.

I can't really speak for others, but I'm OK with that, assuming that
there are enough Free codecs which also work with the system. It's
really hard to blame Real for following contracts they've already
signed. :) 

My problem/objection is if the frameworks the codec plays in can't be
modified, and/or the un-free codecs can't be replaced with Free codecs
when/if those are developed.

Luis