Re: pkgsrc: wip/{audacious,audacious-plugins}

[Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>]

William Pitcock <nenolod%atheme.org@localhost> writes:

> Greg Troxel wrote:
>>
>> 1. add first question to faq: under what license is Audacious.  I
>> searched faq for license and didn't see it.
>>   
> For reference,
>
> 1.3: GPLv2-ONLY
> 1.4: GPLv3-ONLY (base), ISC license (plugins distribution; individual
> plugins have their own license terms)
>
> but this will be added to the FAQ shortly.

Thanks; that will be helpful in the faq.

>> Well, it comes down to it being useful to have it packaged to enable
>> people to test, and I see "you really shoudl use stable instead" and
>> "this should be in a package" as orthogonal.  And I like hygiene in
>> numbering at all times.
>>   
> Yes, but forcing people to test when they would rather use 1.3 is
> absurd, and just causes frustrated people to vent their frustrations
> on us.
>
> Case in point: when Gentoo removed XMMS and tried a forced migration
> to Audacious, we're the ones who got burned, not Gentoo. So we're a
> bit sensitive to that sort of activity now.

Certainly the stable version should be packaged.  And only then maybe
unstable ones with a warning.

> Well, the reason why we don't do that is because a large subset of
> people who have migrated from Windows go "ZOMG A BETA VERSION OF MY
> NEW FAVOURITE WAREZ I MUST DLOAD IT RIGHT N0W", which results in more
> people bothering us with unneeded bug reports "hey! feature Y is
> unimplemented and says it'll be implemented later! this is a bug, i
> need it RIGHT NOW!".
>
> So, calling it a developer release helps to scare those types off.

I see.  There's less of that in the netbsd/pkgsrc community; a number of
us migrated from 4.3BSD on vaxes...

>> Somewhere on the web page it would be nice to explain the plan for how
>> plugins and base interoperate.  Still, most of my plugin comments were
>> directed at packaging.
>
> Think of it like GStreamer, e.g. the GStreamer base and plugins
> collection. Basically the same thing here.

OK.  I was thinking more of how the releasing/versioning plan is.

>>   The only codec that is questionable is TTA (the license of the SDK we
>>   include says non-commercial use only). IANAL though, there may be
>>   others.
>>
>> So how do you distribute the combined work under the GPL?  Or is it only
>> a plugin?
>>   
> TTA is a plugin distributed in -plugins, and Audacious 1.3's "SDK"
> interfaces are BSD license, thus leaving the risk with the end user.
>
> In Audacious 1.4, this is handled better with a notice which says that
> Audacious 1.4's GPL3 license does not apply to modular code linked at
> runtime.

That makes sense, but I didn't come anywhere near close to figuring that
out from your web page.  I don't mean to insist that you rework the web
page for me, just pointing out a new-user experience.  Thanks for
listening.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
pkgsrc-wip-review mailing list
pkgsrc-wip-review%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-review