En r?ponse ? Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>:> BSD licensing has been demonstrated to work in practice, for similar > applications, by a number of high-profile projects, including those > associated with Xiph.org. I believe that in these situations, theIn the case of hardware support, the benefits are still not there.> freedom > and continued viability of the software is ensured not by legal > restrictions, but by recognized leadership in a community. Xiph.org is > a strong ally in that area, with a thriving and well-recognized > community.Well, in the Windows world, Xiph are seen as Linux people. With all the positive and negative vibes that is related. Just look at all the mess that happened with the video integration in OGG (through Tobias W.'s DirectShow filter), or the war of file extensions OGM vs OGG.> I can foresee no obvious negative consequences, and a few tangible > benefits. > Overall, I would say that it seems like a beneficial course of action, > though not to the extent that I would consider it a failure if it were > not taken due to other concerns.That sounds reasonable. My main concern is that FLAC should be usable in other containers than OGG and other architectures than the one Xiph wants to create. This is probably not the right place for me to discuss about this. But the "complete solution" that Xiph wants to create is IMHO a bad move. I think the UNIX way of doing things is better : have simple things working, instead of a big mess. That means there should be a portable codec API, different containers that can work with this API, and the codec developpers should work with that API and don't care about the underlying and upperlying levels. Putting everything in the same bag seems to be a good solution to fill the lack of consistency in the Linux multimedia world. But I think it's a short sighted view.
En r?ponse ? Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>:> > In the case of hardware support, the benefits are still not there. > > Are you suggesting that BSD licensing is problematic for hardware > vendors, > or problematic for other users of the software in the context of > hardware support?Not at all. But what I said is that there is no proof that hardware vendors only want to cope with BSD softwares only. As long as you're the copyright holder, you can do everything with your code. And hardware vendors know that. They are business people :)> The confusion between free software (in general) and Linux is > widespread, > and more or less understandable because the two are so intertwined. I > don't > think that FLAC is any different from current Xiph.org software in > this > respect; people that I talk to about FLAC assume (without even looking) > that it is purely command-line Linux software.Yes, in every world education is necessary. But Xiph has show little concern with the Windows world, which represents a *huge* part in the multimedia world. One of the worst example was the use of Tobias' DirectShow filter with OggMux. The produced file are .ogm to distinguish between .ogg with audio (Vorbis) only. And Xiph prefered to create a Windows hack (actually one of the CoreCodec creators did it) to make sure all OGG file have the .ogg extension wether they have audio or video. This is the opposite of all what most Windows users do and like. And just because Linux is superior to Windows because it doesn't rely on file extension (well, there were a few more arguments). This is the kind of things that made me think (without prior prejudice) that Xiph are doing their own business in a not so open way. I wouldn't like FLAC to become the same, like : "we support this API only and if you don't like it, don't use it". Nothing shows such a move and the opposite have been expressed here. I just hope it will remain the same.> I don't see the Xiph solution as a big mess; indeed, I think that they > have > shown wisdom in their design and development choices with the goal of > producing a useful system. There is a tradeoff between > everything-works-with-everything and having functional software which > makes > sense and can be reliably maintained, and I think that Xiph have found > a good balance with Ogg.See example above. I don't think they always made the best choices. I think they did a great job with Vorbis and I like lacing in OGG. For the rest I think things can be improved and handled differently.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:02:16AM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:> En r?ponse ? Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>: > > > BSD licensing has been demonstrated to work in practice, for similar > > applications, by a number of high-profile projects, including those > > associated with Xiph.org. I believe that in these situations, the > > In the case of hardware support, the benefits are still not there.Are you suggesting that BSD licensing is problematic for hardware vendors, or problematic for other users of the software in the context of hardware support?> > freedom and continued viability of the software is ensured not by legal > > restrictions, but by recognized leadership in a community. Xiph.org is > > a strong ally in that area, with a thriving and well-recognized > > community. > > Well, in the Windows world, Xiph are seen as Linux people. With all the > positive and negative vibes that is related. Just look at all the mess > that happened with the video integration in OGG (through Tobias W.'s > DirectShow filter), or the war of file extensions OGM vs OGG.I do not, in general, keep up with developments in Windows software, so I'm not familiar with this particular mess. The confusion between free software (in general) and Linux is widespread, and more or less understandable because the two are so intertwined. I don't think that FLAC is any different from current Xiph.org software in this respect; people that I talk to about FLAC assume (without even looking) that it is purely command-line Linux software.> My main concern is that FLAC should be usable in other containers than OGG > and other architectures than the one Xiph wants to create. This is > probably not the right place for me to discuss about this. But the > "complete solution" that Xiph wants to create is IMHO a bad move. I think > the UNIX way of doing things is better : have simple things working, > instead of a big mess. That means there should be a portable codec API, > different containers that can work with this API, and the codec > developpers should work with that API and don't care about the underlying > and upperlying levels. Putting everything in the same bag seems to be a > good solution to fill the lack of consistency in the Linux multimedia > world. But I think it's a short sighted view.I don't see the Xiph solution as a big mess; indeed, I think that they have shown wisdom in their design and development choices with the goal of producing a useful system. There is a tradeoff between everything-works-with-everything and having functional software which makes sense and can be reliably maintained, and I think that Xiph have found a good balance with Ogg. -- - mdz