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

Re: to autodownload or not to autodownload



On Feb 10, 2008 10:48 AM, Hans de Goede <j w r degoede hhs nl> wrote:
> Ah, comeone "Highlighting the cost is part of the message that codeina
> provides to the end users" ?? Thats just plain nonsense, the linking to must
> pay for codecs in codina is plain and simply _bad_, but for some reason
> condoned because the codec issue is a big problem for end users, so having some
> very ugly work around is seen as ok in this situation.

I'm fine with linking to 'for pay' but open codecs. The 'for pay'
isn't the issue.. its the closed source nature of most of the items
now listed which is a problem really.

Fluendo's MIT licensed mp3 plugin is perfectly fine with me...even if
they charged for it.. it would be fine.  Is it sillyness for people
who believe themselves immune to the patent problems in this
space...yes. But we are where we are, and the concept of just-in-time
needed codec detection technology is pretty useful generally.   That
is the core of what codeina is, discovering what codecs you need when
you need them for the first time.  How you fill that need, needs work
noone denies that.  It's absolutely possible for someone to build the
bits so that livna rpm packages are part of the choices once
livna-release package is installed.  If noone in the community wants
to build that integration, that's a real shame.

We do have an opportunity to rework the presentation.  I'd be
satisfied with a codeina codebase which supported multiple vendors for
each filetype and we as a project could decide exactly what the
default listings are.  Such a default listing maybe limited to just
fluendo's MIT licensed mp3 plugin.  So far I haven't heard anything
from anyone that would suggest that isn't achievable for F9.


-jef


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