[vlc-devel] RoarAudio plugin for VLC

Philipp Schafft lion at lion.leolix.org
Wed Oct 5 16:05:59 CEST 2011


Thanks for the answer.

On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 12:28 +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> 	Hello,
> Le samedi 1 octobre 2011 16:59:33 Philipp Schafft, vous avez écrit :
> > maister wrote a VLC plugin[0][1] to output to RoarAudio[2] using
> > libroar[4]. I would like to see this included in upstream VLC.
> > What is the process to get this done?
> Submit git-formatted a patch against vlc.git to vlc-devel.

Ok. I guess maiser can export such a patch as well.

> > However I currently see a problem: if VLC moves over to LGPL the plugin
> > may not be compatible as libroar is not compatible ([5] or [6], don't
> > know which applies).
> LibVLC is intended to move over to LGPLv2.1+. That remains upward compatible 
> with GPLv3 as before. However, binary distributions of VLC and LibVLC would 
> then be GPLv3+, instead of GPLv2+ and LGPLv2.1+ respestively, if they include 
> the RoarAudio plug-in.

This is how I understand it.

> > libroar is GPLv3. There is µRoar[7], a
> > implementation of the RoarAudio protocol for license incompatible
> > software. It is under LGPL v3 or later. Still this would require rewrite
> > of lage parts of the plugin.
> > 
> > What is the process of this possible change of VLC to LGPL? Haven't
> > found up to date news on the page. Should commiting this plugin maybe be
> > delayed until the situation is clear again?
> VideoLAN does not want to keep chasing a moving target. Any new contributor 
> thus needs to clearly state if (s)he accepts the LGPL relicensing.
> I understand that, if (s)he does not accept the LGPL relicensing, then (s)he 
> will only be allowed to contribute within the GPL sandbox. That means plug-ins 
> for the user interface and/or dependant on GPL libraries such as libpostproc 
> or libsamplerate.

ok. I have talked to maister about this. I think we can release the
plugin itself under LGPL if that helps. Still libroar will be GPLv3
only. As long as the VLC project seperates GPL and non-GPL compatible
code somehow (you used the word 'sandbox') I think there is no problem
with me.

> However, a contributor that does not state his/her position on LGPL (whether 
> for or against) will be denied commit completely.

Of cause, clear statements are important.

 (Rah of PH2)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/attachments/20111005/bd051735/attachment.sig>

More information about the vlc-devel mailing list