On 04/06/04 18:08:18, Paul Davis wrote: You misunderstand. I'm not saying you're stupid for suggesting using the win32 codecs (if that's what you have to do to play the damn things, that's what you have to do, it's hardly your fault). I'm saying Lionstracs is stupid for requiring you to do so. Especially since they sell Linux-running products, and have taken so much from the free software world. It's not a big deal, and I'm certainly not implying the company is "evil" or whatever, but still. I figured it was worth mentioning. I couldn't agree more about 'the industry' screwing the users over huge in this department. Can't we just make proprietary file formats flat out illegal already? :) What a beautiful day that would be... -Dave

Zitat von Benno Senoner <sbenno(a)gardena.net>et>: Whenever I come across this problem, I recommend the Linux Movie Player (mplayer) for win32: http://oss.netfarm.it/mplayer-win32.php It's a rather small download, and will play most Linux-Movies without the need to install codecs or whatever on win32. -Richard

Hi there, Beginning to play with some code in linux plateform for audio, I face a major problem: I have a very weak understanding of thread programming. I know the basic concepts (thread principle, mutex and lock), but fail to use them effectively. I found a lot of links on thread programming, but it is just about the API (generally pthread), and the examples are really trivial in general. When I looked at the archive, I see a lot of terms which I don't really understand, like watchdog thread, thread scheduling, and I am lost :( So does anybody know a good and deep online ressource about thread programming ? Also, my main language is C++, and I looked a bit at boost library. It should be kind of a detail, but are there deep differences between pthread and boost.threads ? Thanks, David

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 02:18 pm, Cournapeau David wrote: I'm no expert, but I found capture_client.c in the example-clients/ directory of the JACK source code to be a very good practical example. I learned a lot from examining it. |) |)enji

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 01:57:32 +0200 Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote: Maybe not. If no GPL'ed code has been modified, they don't have to (re)publish it. And they are allowed to build a whole proprietary cathedral (including kernel modules) on top of it. -- David

Es geschah am Donnerstag, 8. April 2004 02:59 als Marek Peteraj schrieb: There he is, our lawyer :) But I also think Marek is right. They're bound at least to mention which GPLed software they're using or / and providing a reference to the source code. CU Christian

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:59:00 +0200 Marek Peteraj <marpet(a)naex.sk> wrote: I stand corrected, thanks. If I follow you, any linux powered mobile phone reseller (say, your local shop) should comply to this too. Am I right ? -- David

But note that there's a difference between a mere aggregation and a combination of several modules into one program. The GPL Faq describes that precisely. Marek

On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 21:29, will(a)malefactor.org wrote: The GPL explicitly states: 'to give _any_ third party ... a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code ...' It all depends on how you want to comply to Section 1, in case you want to comply. ;) Marek

On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 22:44, will(a)malefactor.org wrote: Note that only 3 a) and 3 b) apply in our case. <snip> The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to 'general public'. The GPL also uses the term ‚any third party'. For example, you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, in which case you'd normally restrict access to those who pay. In that case you're obliged to put a general public notice that _any_ third party, which intends to pay a fee, will do so for the physical act of transferring a copy of GPLed software, which is being distributed in form of machine readable source-code or as an object or executable form. In case of distributing an object or executable form, you need inform that the corresponding source-code is included or include an offer. You might ask, why? Because there's no way to find out if there's a GPL violation happening when the distributor denies access by charging a fee, which would make such license obsolete. General public means that the general public or any third party should know. In Section 1, the GPL allows to charge a higher fee than the cost of physically performing source distribution, while not allowing to charge more than the cost of physically performing source distribution in section 3 b), which means that if you intend to charge for the physical act of transferring a copy of the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form, you're allowed to charge more aswell, but in that case, if you don't provide the source-code, you can't do additional charges and you have to make an offer and provide it in case any third party is interested. If you do not intend to charge a fee(which is the case of the previously mentioned companies), then 'general public' applies again, no matter whether it's a machine readable source-code, object or executable, meaning that you can't restrict access to your customers and you have to comply with the GPL. Or if you do restrict the access, a general public notice should apply, but that's questionable. If not, it's perfectly fine to ship the source-code while entirely compying with Section 1 (,2) of the GPL license or to ship the object/executable while entirely complying with Sections 1,2,3. But that applies to both a CD shipped with a product or a website download. Marek

On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 00:45, Michael Ost wrote: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html . You are a bit off track, the section on "Common Misunderstandings of the GPL" will get you back on track. Putting the code on an FTP server is not enough. It is easier to include the source on a CD with the binaries and also make it possible for any third party to order the source code CD via mail for the cost of the disc and postage. -- http://unknownlamer.org jabber:clintonathcoopdotnet IRC:unknown_lamer@freenode#hprog I use Free Software because I value freedom over features.

On 04/09/04 01:51:53, Clinton Ebadi wrote: Putting the source up on an FTP server (provided it's publically known about and announced and whatnot) is fine, you just need to include an _offer_ to mail a CD with the source code. Noone is actually going to order it anyway if it's on FTP. I'd say suggesting this (including the offer) to companies is a better idea than saying they need to include a bunch of crap on their distribution CD's, or even worse an entire seperate CD (which costs money, and thus pisses companies off). I'm as militant a GPL nazi as you can get, and personally I think putting the code up on a FTP server follows the spirit of the GPL nicely. In fact, not having the source code for download would constitute a pain in the ass IMO. But technically yes, the offer (or a source CD) should be included with the product. -Dave

Jan Depner wrote: True, maybe nobody will order it. But they're supposed to supply a __written__ offer that if anyone does order it, it will be sent.

The safest bet is to do the following: 1. Don't restrict access to object/executable and also provide a download for corresponding source-code at the same place on the website (by doing that you'll be providing it to any third party and accompanying it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source-code on the website) 2. Also either include the source-code on a CD shipped with the product which contains the object/executable that is run in the product(or make a written offer where it can't be missed, which is harder), or if you don't ship such CD, make a written offer in the manuals. Marek

On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 15:18, Simon Jenkins wrote: There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer) post. I think it's common misunderstanding of the GPL that a company only has to make the GPLed sw available only to its customers. It's technically possible, imagine a situation where the company wouldn't provide d/ls of the software being used in their product. In that case, the company would distribute(in the product!) the executable with the product only to its customers. But that again doesn't mean that only customers be allowed to ask for the source-code in case of a given written offer. The important thing to keep in mind is, if you provide d/l of the software which is GPLed means it should be available to anyone who views the site which offers that, hence 'any third party', 'general public'. Again, see my previous post to see why this is important. Right, but you raised an important point here. The case of GPLed software being used in a product. If no CD with the software is provided, then the GPL license should accompany the product in a printed form, either included in the manuals with a wirtten offer or separately. At least in that case. Marek

i believe this is correct. marek is reading the GPL as a regular english text, when in fact it is legalese. in normal english, "a third party" is just "another person". in a license agreement, it has a much more specific connotation. a "party" here is not a person, its someone who is in some way involved in the license agreement being discussed. a "third party" is thus a person involved in the license agreement, but they are not either the licensee nor the licensor. none of this would be notable to a lawyer - its only an item for disagreement/confusion because its interpreted by non-lawyers way too often :) and this is precisely why the 3 options for distribution (in the non-commercial distributon case only) include an "upstream feed" (i.e. you can get it where i got it). if i license my program to you, and you (non-commercially) distribute it to someone else, you can point them to me. --p

On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote: Nobody had a problem with Native Instruments just packaging the sources on a CD with Final Scratch: http://eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html :) IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable, you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the "general public" (read: everyone on earth). Of course, I wouldn't put it past Stallman, but it seems way too screwy...

will(a)malefactor.org wrote: True. Just that one person. But IF instead of giving them the source you give them a written offer to provide the source THEN they can pass your offer along to third parties under some circumstances. IANAL either... I'm a programmer. But the GPL is an algorithm and its pretty clear how its intended to function. Whether or not it would actually function as intended on its "target processor" (a courtroom)? /That's/ what you'd need a lawyer to tell you. Simon Jenkins

Marek Peteraj wrote: It might be what you meant... but it flatly contradicts what you *said*. Do you defend "difficult cases" by any chance? Cos you're pretty good at obfuscation, thats for sure. If ever I'm accused of something I'm guilty of (erm... again...) I want you on my team! :) Simon Jenkins

Marek Peteraj wrote: Oh, erm... somewhere in here... [ _underlining_ yours] ..."obliged to put a general public notice"...??? I don't think so: If I give source code to those who pay then I'm done, finished, obligations discharged. If I give them a written offer of source code instead then _some_ third parties may also be entitled to the written offer: But even then its *not my responsibility to make them aware of the offer*! Its the re-distributors obligation to pass along my written offer, if that's what they received from me. All I've got to do is honour it if someone (/to whom it was passed along/) takes it up.

Marek Peteraj wrote: I won't unless they tell me. But I don't normally spend $30 without finding out what it is I'm buying first. That's from section 1, conncerning source transfer. There's no such restriction in section 3 concerning object/executeable transfer. See FAQ "Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?" "Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html> is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)" Yes it matters. See FAQ "Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program?" Its *re*distribution you can't restrict. You can restrict your own distribution of object/executeable as much as you like, and your obligation to distribute source only extends to people you distributed the executeable to... *unless* you use the "written offer" option, in which case that written offer may be passed along by your distributees. "Because I don't want to" is a legitimate reason not to distribute the executeable to someone. "Because I didn't distribute the executeable to you, nor did I make a written offer of source code to someone who distributed the executeable to you" is a legitimate reason not to distribute the source to someone. What, *again*? OK then. If you distribute an executeable and provide a written offer of source (section 3b) then your distributees may pass along the written offer to third parties (section 3c). Simon Jenkins

To summarize: By not providing a public notice if charging a fee for d/l or by restricting access without a legitimate reason, you're effectively bypassing the GPL and its nature, even if the GPL doesn't explicitly tell that. Companies which want the sw they're using to stay a secret, can ask the author for another license, and the author is free to charge a license fee for that. Nobody is forcing the companies to use Linux or any other open source software. But if they choose to use it under the terms of GPL, then they just can't do what they want. Marek