[Ffmpeg-devel] FFmpeg naming and logo
Thu Feb 16 12:41:13 CET 2006
Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 10:47:07AM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>>Rich Felker wrote:
>>>On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 03:16:25PM +0100, Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>>>>Why? You have probably eaten a non-free lunch and are sitting on a
>>>Apparently you fail to understand the meaning of free. I would suspect
>>>that Michael can freely immitate the food he made for lunch, cooking
>>>something similar or almost identical for his friends or himself or
>>>anyone he pleases. As for his chair, other people can sit on it if he
>>>wants to let them; he can disassemble it and study how it's put
>>>together and use that knowledge in order to build a new chair, etc.
>>>Use of and dependence on non-free software is not acceptable, and it's
>>>utterly hypocritical to design your logo in a nonfree data format with
>>>nonfree software. Don't try to warp the issue with nonsense analogies
>>>that don't hold water.
>>Fortunately I seem to have developped some immunity to your typically
>>harsh style, ...
> Judging from the manner in which you jump into this flamewar, the
> opposite appears to be true.
But I did it without getting high blood pressure!
>>I suppose you dont use a mobile phone because the embedded and network
>>software arent opensource?
> Check out Harald Welte's talk about the subject "Towards the first Free
> Software GSM Phone - Reverse Engineering the Motorola EZX (A768,A780,E680)
> series of Linux-based GSM phones" at the Chaos Communication Congress
> last year:
I did not mean it was unexistant or impossible, and indeed I would love
to see a mobile based on a PDA plus Linux over a proprietary one. I
meant that I dont believe OSS developpers have refrained from using
mobiles until then!
>>BTW why do you bother with ffmpeg since its
>>not GPL, which by your rules is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil?
> FFmpeg is free software under any definition of the term.
I didnt mean its not, only that *by Rich's rules* it's probably not free
>>The rules for the dev of ffmpeg (or of any opensource software I know
>>of!) do not put any restrictions on the tools one uses, a non-free
>>editor or IDE or movie-analyzer is supposed to be OK, as long as the
>>*final* code is not thereby subject to restrictions.
> Dependence on non-free tools is deplorable, but unfortunately sometimes
> unavoidable if no adequate free alternative exists.
>>By the same rules, using Photoshop would not 'taint' the logo. What
>>*is* to be avoided is the reliance on any copyrighted artwork (like
>>brushes or patterns or textures coming with the software under
>>insufficient or obscure licensing terms).
> You fail to see the point. Proprietary software (often) comes with
> proprietary file formats. I'm not sure how good Gimp supports Photoshop
> documents now, but the last time I checked years ago it was incomplete.
Quite right! But drawing a logo in Photoshop and saving it as JPEG would
(IMHO) not create any reliance.
I can easily understand Michael not desiring to purchase Photoshop. But
if he has it, I dont see why it would not be appropriate to use it for a
T +32  2 790 29 41
F +32  2 790 29 02
E mailto:mbardiaux at mediaxim.be
Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
More information about the ffmpeg-devel