Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Reading through the FAQ, I'm pretty sure many projects are not > > aware of > > the implications of having chosen the GPL, at least not to the > > extent > > the FSF believes it would have. To me, it is only important what > > the > > license text says, not what someone (even the author) wants to read > > into it. And since this is a license it's what actually counts. > Well, then we don't agree. IMHO, unless we've got special permissions > from > the copyright holders, the morally correct thing to do is Ahem, I'm not arguing about the moral terms - we're on the same page there. I was just arguing about the license itself, and that it does not really go as far as the accompanying FAQ. Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Ingo Weinhold<ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> > wrote: > > Back to the media codecs: They are loaded by libmedia and thus > > indirectly > > by the program (at least there's no separate process). > Again this may just be stepping around the details of the GPL and not > the spirit, but what about having some sort of separate process for > media add-ons (or at least GPL ones?) I guess performance might > suffer, but personally I'd like these areas improved in performance > because of the multi-process browser design I want to implement :) At least the FAQ explicitly states that communication over shared memory and the like is a good sign for work that is not separate. In Ubuntu, there is also a ffmpeg codec for GStreamer - so much for the spirit, although it's not installed by default, it will be installed automatically. That's something we can obviously do without problems later on... Bye, Axel.