Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NihAV Is An Experimental Multimedia Framework Written In Rust

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Spam View Post

    You mean you can take without giving back? :/
    How does LGPL facilitate this?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by cl333r View Post

      I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious why is AGPL bad?
      "Bad" is in the eyes of the beholder, and so is software "freedom", so the judgmental will chime in at some point. But, essentially, with LGPL you can link against the library, but don't need to release your source code as long as you don't modify the library itself; with GPL you have to release your source code if you link against the library and you distribute the binaries, but not if you simply provide it as a service; with AGPL you have to release your source code if you distribute the binary or if you provide a service using the library.

      Of course, as always, consult *your* lawyer before choosing a license, or utilizing software licensed by others.
      Last edited by CommunityMember; 08-09-2020, 05:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Why are Rust project names so negative? Like:

        - Rust (a bad thing for metals)
        - Corrode (same thing)
        - ripgrep (sounds scary, like Rest in Peace, grep)
        - NihAV (not invented here AV)
        Last edited by tildearrow; 08-09-2020, 10:00 PM. Reason: thanks acobar

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Spam View Post

          You mean you can take without giving back? :/
          I like submit issues on GitHub, send in pull requests, help reproduce bugs, help with the documentation and the wiki. I like open source software that I write on my spare time. But when I am at my workplace, then we can't really use AGPL software.

          Originally posted by cl333r View Post

          I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious why is AGPL bad?
          Then you cant use it to build a software as a service. AGPL it also viral, so if link a library that is AGPL then you must open source your entire application, which may be offered as a service.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
            Why are Rust project names so negative? Like:

            - Rust (a bad thing for metals)
            - Corrode (same thing)
            - ripgrep (sounds scary, like Rest in Peace, grep)
            - NihAV (not implemented here AV)
            I know right, C projects are much more sane:
            Code:
             
            2.6.20-rc2–2.6.20 Homicidal Dwarf Hamster[16][17]
            2.6.21-rc4–2.6.21 Nocturnal Monster Puppy[18]
            2.6.22-rc3–2.6.22-rc4 Jeff Thinks I Should Change This, But To What?
            2.6.22-rc5–2.6.22 Holy Dancing Manatees, Batman![19]
            2.6.23-rc4–2.6.23-rc6 Pink Farting Weasel[20]
            2.6.23-rc7–2.6.232.6.24 Arr Matey! A Hairy Bilge Rat![21] (TLAPD 2007)
            stable: 2.6.24.1– Err Metey! A Heury Beelge-a Ret![22]
            2.6.25-rc2–2.6.25 Funky Weasel is Jiggy wit it[23]
            2.6.26-rc6–2.6.262.6.27 Rotary Wombat[24]
            stable: 2.6.27.3– Trembling Tortoise[25]
            2.6.28-rc1–2.6.28-rc6 Killer Bat of Doom[26][27]
            2.6.28-rc7–2.6.28–2.6.29-rc8 Erotic Pickled Herring[28]
            2.6.29 Temporary Tasmanian Devil[29][30]
            2.6.30-rc4–2.6.30-rc6 Vindictive Armadillo[31][32]
            2.6.30-rc7–2.6.302.6.312.6.322.6.33–2.6.34-rc4 Man-Eating Seals of Antiquity[33][34]
            2.6.34-rc5-2.6.342.6.35 Sheep on Meth[35][36]
            stable: 2.6.35.7– Yokohama
            2.6.36-rc8–2.6.362.6.372.6.38-2.6.39 Flesh-Eating Bats with Fangs[37][38]
            3.0-rc1–3.0 Sneaky Weasel[39][40]
            3.1-rc2 Wet Seal
            3.1-rc3–3.1 Divemaster Edition[41] (Linus' diving activities)
            3.2-rc1–3.23.33.43.5 Saber-toothed Squirrel[42]
            3.6-rc7–3.63.7 Terrified Chipmunk[43][44]
            3.8-rc6–3.83.93.10 Unicycling Gorilla[45][46]
            stable: 3.8.5– Displaced Humerus Anterior[47]
            stable: 3.9.6– Black Squirrel Wakeup Call[48]
            stable: 3.10.6– TOSSUG Baby Fish[49][50][51][52]
            3.11-rc1–3.11 Linux for Workgroups (20 years of Windows 3.11)[53]
            3.12-rc1– Suicidal Squirrel[54]
            3.13-rc1 One Giant Leap for Frogkind[55] (NASA LADEE launch photo)[56]
            3.14-rc1 Shuffling Zombie Juror[57]
            3.18-rc3 Diseased Newt[58]
            4.0 Hurr durr I'ma sheep[59] (Internet poll)
            4.1.1 Series 4800[60]
            4.3-rc5 Blurry Fish Butt[61][62]
            4.6-rc6 Charred Weasel[63]
            4.7-rc1 Psychotic Stoned Sheep[64]
            4.9 Roaring Lionus[65][66]
            4.10-rc5 Anniversary Edition[67]
            4.10-rc6 Fearless Coyote[68]
            4.17-rc4 Merciless Moray[69]
            4.19 "People's Front"[70]
            4.20-rc4–5.0 Shy Crocodile[71]
            5.2-rc2 Golden Lions[72][73]
            5.2 Bobtail Squid[74]
            5.4-rc2 Nesting Opossum[75]
            5.4-rc5 Kleptomaniac Octopus[76]

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by cl333r View Post
              I know right, C projects are much more sane:
              Well, at least those were kinda funny and silly.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                Then you cant use it to build a software as a service. AGPL it also viral, so if link a library that is AGPL then you must open source your entire application, which may be offered as a service.
                Well yeah. This is what prevents people from building on the hard work of others and not passing those same freedoms to their own users. This is exactly what the whole GPL ecosystem of licenses is really trying to solve. People who push GPL but not AGPL for their "cloud" trinkets probably feel quite smart that they have found a "loophole" but it really means that they simply aren't willing to embrace FSF open-source. Kinda like the UK and the Euro XD.

                I wish the GPLv3 was a little more weaponised to include parts of the AGPL. Of course if you want to give your immediate users ultimate freedom, there is MIT and BSD licenses.
                Last edited by kpedersen; 08-09-2020, 04:49 PM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

                  Well yeah. This is what prevents people from building on the hard work of others and not passing those same freedoms to their own users. This is exactly what the whole GPL ecosystem of licenses is really trying to solve. People who push GPL but not AGPL for their "cloud" trinkets probably feel quite smart that they have found a "loophole" but it really means that they simply aren't willing to embrace FSF open-source. Kinda like the UK and the Euro XD.

                  I wish the GPLv3 was a little more weaponised to include parts of the AGPL. Of course if you want to give your immediate users ultimate freedom, there is MIT and BSD licenses.
                  The GPL never solved any of that. Tell me one software as a service provider that provides open source for the software that powers their service. There is no company who ever was like "oh lets open source our bread and butter service offering that we get all our revenue from so we can make use of this AGPL library".

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
                    Why are Rust project names so negative? Like:

                    - Rust (a bad thing for metals)
                    - Corrode (same thing)
                    - ripgrep (sounds scary, like Rest in Peace, grep)
                    - NihAV (not implemented here AV)
                    It's tongue in cheek for the most part. Rust programmers call themselves rustaceans...

                    Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

                    Well yeah. This is what prevents people from building on the hard work of others and not passing those same freedoms to their own users. This is exactly what the whole GPL ecosystem of licenses is really trying to solve. People who push GPL but not AGPL for their "cloud" trinkets probably feel quite smart that they have found a "loophole" but it really means that they simply aren't willing to embrace FSF open-source. Kinda like the UK and the Euro XD.

                    I wish the GPLv3 was a little more weaponised to include parts of the AGPL. Of course if you want to give your immediate users ultimate freedom, there is MIT and BSD licenses.
                    This is entering philosophical territory: which code is truly free, the one you can use however you want or the one you must use however the license dictates?

                    Personally, I think every developer is free to use whatever license they want for their code. Then, based on that license, you can decide to use it or not. And that's it. There's no right or wrong here.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by uid313 View Post

                      The GPL never solved any of that. Tell me one software as a service provider that provides open source for the software that powers their service. There is no company who ever was like "oh lets open source our bread and butter service offering that we get all our revenue from so we can make use of this AGPL library".
                      That is exactly it. Companies don't like to do this. So it seems like the AGPL license does work in that companies have had to write their own (re)implementation wasting their resources rather than just using a tried and tested (albeit AGPL) open-source solution.

                      Whereas a startup community or open-source project can avoid this extra work by just using the AGPL licensed software because their project is open-source anyway. Because they can skip the extra work, they are more likely to be competitive in the market place. Everyone is a winner.

                      I wish more software that underpins open-source communities did use AGPL rather than companies wrapping it up with a fancy logo and charging for subscription. Just imagine if GNU/Linux went to AGPL / Commercial dual license. Think of the uproar. The Linux foundation would make a fair amount from the commercial dual license.

                      Originally posted by bug77 View Post
                      Personally, I think every developer is free to use whatever license they want for their code. Then, based on that license, you can decide to use it or not. And that's it. There's no right or wrong here.
                      That is very true. What I do think is wrong though is someone saying that they support the GNU idea of free software (and that BSD/MIT is bad because it can be closed up by a company) and then avoiding AGPL code because it cannot be monetised (and effectively closed up behind a cloud trinket).

                      (uid313, not suggesting this refers to you. You are obviously just dealing with commercial development. Not really GPL or open-source so I can see why you would be a little inconvenienced by an AGPL dependency )
                      Last edited by kpedersen; 08-09-2020, 05:27 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X