the licence is GPL, LGPL, MIT, and MPL

Posted Sep 17, 2008 15:42 UTC (Wed) by zooko (guest, #2589)
In reply to: the licence is GPL, LGPL, MIT, and MPL by stevenj
Parent article: Dirac 1.0.0 released.

So as I understand it, currently the Schroedinger implementation can be extended with proprietary extensions and the resulting product shipped to 3rd parties, but the dirac-research implementation cannot, because it is distributed only under reciprocal licences (Mozilla, GPL, LGPL).

This would be different if the dirac-research implementation were also available under MIT, as the schroedinger implementation is. In that case, people would be able to extend the dirac-research implementation with proprietary changes and redistribute the result.

the licence is GPL, LGPL, MIT, and MPL

Posted Sep 17, 2008 16:11 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Ya..

The MIT license doesn't address the patent issue in any manner. Which is possibly one of the reasons why it's chosen. (they want Dirac to be accepted by everybody and not just the open source crowd. That means working with proprietary software and that means patent issues)

If I remember correctly the mp3 codecs from Fluendo are under the MIT license, but the patent licensing that goes along with the binaries and source code effectively make them 'proprietary' codecs.

So by releasing the codec under MIT and GPL-related licenses (which loosely covers patent-related issues in a non-bulletproof manner) Dirac is effectively assuring us that they have a commitment towards Free media codecs and keeping Dirac open that you won't get if you do pure-bsd or pure-mit license then have end users convert it over GPL.

In other words, by releasing under the GPL they are making a commitment towards covering end users from related patents they own. This commitment is not expressed if they release it under a pure-MIT license.

the licence is GPL, LGPL, MIT, and MPL

Posted Sep 18, 2008 7:57 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (2 responses)

It may be interesting to note that the Ogg codecs are under BSD license. I think Stallman adviced this, if I remember correctly, because it is reference code and stands to gain from use in proprietary software as well.

Stallman on Ogg Vorbis using permissive licence

Posted Sep 18, 2008 9:05 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

Yup. Here's Stallman's quote:

I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with other formats that would be restricted against our use.

That quote is from 2001. I wonder would it actually be better, in these rare cases when a permissive licence is best, for the developers to *also* release under the GNU GPL so that the patent and DRM non-restriction promises are clear. Hmm.

Stallman on Ogg Vorbis using permissive licence

Posted Sep 18, 2008 13:24 UTC (Thu) by zooko (guest, #2589) [Link]

That appears to be what they are doing with the schroedinger project -- it is released under both GPL and MIT. Not so with the dirac-research project, which is released only under reciprocal licences.

Now that job and coriordan have pointed out these strategic considerations, it seems like they probably chose to do it this way because of these strategic considerations: they want the schroedinger implementation to be re-used in proprietary products for better market penetration of the codec itself, while they want the dirac-research implementation to have enforced reciprocality so that new innovations have to be open.

Just a guess.