[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Savannah-register-public] [task #7729] Submission of FreeMediaTools

From: James Michael DuPont
Subject: [Savannah-register-public] [task #7729] Submission of FreeMediaTools
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:33:38 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060205 Debian/1.7.12-1.1

Follow-up Comment #3, task #7729 (project administration):

I dont have a problem with the code being LGPLED, it is free software.

I want to exercise my rights for my contributions as allowed in the LGPL, and
make my contributions under the GPL. 

I dont think that the current project as alive, and it does not make sense to
contribute to it as it is. For the chance to revive it and continue
maintainence it should be licensed under one license not many.

But I do not aggree with the logic presented in the streamers licensing faq
that I have linked. If there is no place for people to create GPLed code, and
make contributions under the GPL, then they will be forced to make them under
the LGPL. 

What I do think is this :

1. the application at this point has a mix of licenses in the source
distribution. on source forge they said it is gpled. in the copying file the
same. but some files are lgpled as well.
this was confusing for me.

2. I think that people should have the choice to exercise the LGPL clause for
relicensing. I would like to contribute to making the jahshaka program better,
the application itself. I dont see why I should contribute my changes as LGPL
inside the application. It seems to me to be an arbitrary split.

3. The fact that the code is not even being kept up to the gnu standards for
documentation, coding, packaging etc. makes it hard to work on it. Many people
have complained about not being able to build, that the dependancies are not
clearly marked.

4. the debian pacakaging of the software is still in waiting, done by a
debian developer. It seems the emails went unanswered for a long time.

5. The application is split up into 10-20 libraries with lots of inline
functions. It is extremly difficult to debug or work on the code. I dont see
the point in having all these modules at runtime. For linking it makes sense
to have modules, but there is no need for having tons of shared objects in my
opinion. it is fine to have a staticly linked video editor that has all the
plug ins compiled in.

I hope that I have addressed the issues that people have brought up. 

Maybe you will understand why there is a need for a fork of the code as it


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]