Difference from mplayer

Posted Oct 23, 2003 16:02 UTC (Thu) by torsten (guest, #4137)
In reply to: Difference from mplayer by flewellyn
Parent article: Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release

"I just checked the source tree for mplayer 1.0-pre1 for the LICENSE file, and sure enough, it's the GPL. So I see no reason for any problems."

While mplayer is GPL, most of the AV libraries on which it depends are hacked copies of Windows DLL's, not original works. This player (I believe originally released from Real codebase), contains AV libraries they developed themselves.

Difference from mplayer

Posted Oct 23, 2003 20:20 UTC (Thu) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't believe this is correct. Yes, mplayer is capable of using winelib and Windows codec DLL's, but it also uses the ffmpeg library for processing a lot of codecs (Sorensen, etc.).

The problem so far as I'm aware is that those codecs are patented, not that mplayer is shipping Windows DLL's.

Difference from mplayer

Posted Oct 26, 2003 7:55 UTC (Sun) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link]

"I don't believe this is correct. Yes, mplayer is capable of using winelib and Windows codec DLL's, but it also uses the ffmpeg library for processing a lot of codecs (Sorensen, etc.)."

You are a little dated. The Linux library loader has long had the ability to dllopen Windows DLL files directly. Those backend libraries that get put in "/usr/local/lib/win32", yup, win32 DLL's. This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. Check your facts, not your beliefs.