best player
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
what is the best music player and the best video player who follow the GPL3? vlc doesn't follow the 3°, isn't??
i ask the same in the italian forum but i have not response....
> what is the best music player and the best video player who follow the
> GPL3? vlc doesn't follow the 3°, isn't??
VLC uses GPLv2+, so it can be distributed under the terms of GPLv2 or
GPLv3. Even if it could only be distributed under the terms of GPLv2
(as is the case with Linux), it would still be free software. Why don't
you want to use software that is not under GPLv3?
This depends on "GPL v2 only" or "GPL v2 or later". If it's the first case, then it faces the same threat (tivoization) as Linux kernel.
RMS has written an article explaining the importance of "or later", published on gnu.org.
i read this, thanks!
That is an important difference. As a developer, I use the GPLv3+. Partly for that reason: I do not want my work to help sell tivoized devices. However, as a user, I reject tivoized devices and running any free software (distributed under the GPLv2, GPLv3, or any other free software license) on a non-tivoized device basically gives me the same freedoms. As a consequence, as a user, I see no reason to some reject free software because its license does not prevent tivoization. RMS does not refuse to run GPLv2 or even permissively-licensed software either.
thanks, i think to have understand your words. but IF all users reject all non-gpl3 software, you have only device non-tivoized and so we are free?
i think "like a user i dont need" is mortal idea for gpl3 ...maybe i wrote...i am not sure...
We are free, in control of the software, if we can, in practice (hence not on a tivoized device), run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Any free software license gives us these freedoms.
Let us take a more extreme example: why would I refuse to use a permissively licensed program? It gives me all the freedoms listed above. The proprietary derivatives do not. But I do not use those.
Of course, you can run whatever software you want. Or not run, for that matter. If you only accept GPLv3 software, you have far bigger problems than finding a multimedia player: you cannot run it on any popular display server (Wayland is distributed under the Expat license; X11 under the, well, X11 license) or on the Linux framebuffer (Linux is distributed under the terms of the GPLv2 only, and DirectFB under the LGPLv2.2). Also, you cannot use Linux drivers.
thanks very much, this words are clear and significant, for me. i understand. for me the very best important think is the free software, gpl 1-2-3, not the device (maybe i don't have this) for this the gpl3 is for me not so very fondamental. if it is a free software (gpl1/2/3) i can use without fails...
thanks
i ever think at the gpl3 like a perfect gpl2, at the gpl2 like a perfect gpl1.... those have a different range, not the same object...
There are far more free software licenses than the different versions of the GNU GPL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
because i think all gpl laws have a "raison-d'etre", maybe if is not necessary, nobody lose the mind and the time for write... but is only my idea....
yes vlc and other software is really free and open software, i ask only if its a player gpl3...thanks for your words...
https://pragha-music-player.github.io/
for now i find this...
i think this so, it's came from gnu pages...
https://gmusicbrowser.org/
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios