Avisynth should be LGPL instead of GPL.

[Monamona]

As everybody knows, things which make avisynth useful are its plugins. However, here is a big problem. Avisynth is being developed
under GPL. This means that plugins have to follow GPL which forces
the developers to open their source codes to public.
Unfortunately, some developers make their plugins without knowing it.
If they realize it, it is pretty obvious that they stop making and
releasing their wonderful useful plugins. And, nobody cannot
download and use them.

In fact, some nice japanese guy deleted all his useful plugins
like IVTC, noise reduction and resize from his web site after he
knew about GPL. These plugins might be made with his special
knowledge and skill, so they were really amazing. Especially, his
recent-released IVTC plugin, which is called IT, was tested by many
people and got great praise. (They said it was better than decomb.)
However, we cannot have anymore.

Under some circumstances like developers use some secret codes of
their companies, it is so hard to open the source code to public
(in most cases, these kinds of plugins are especially useful).
GPL of avisynth disencourges people to make plugins. This causes
decline of avisynth itself.

I strongly suggest to make avisynth LGPL instead of GPL or add some exceptional clauses.

[Richard Berg]

Plugins do not have to be GPL. If the current plugin framework and/or license contradict me here, please speak up as I would (to the extent I have any influence on the project) consider it something to be addressed immediately. I'm no great fan of closed-source plugins, but they are infinitely better than not having them at all.

[sh0dan]

I have no strong opinion about this, but in reality nobody here has enforced GPL.
Modifications fo AviSynth should be public, to avoid closed source modded version, but if people don't want to release source to their filters, it should be up to them.

So it would make much sense to make an exception for plugins.

The only example I can think of is Link2, and the included new AviSource and conversion routines - would these have to be opened? (we are talking in principle - I have no intension of destroying edwin's business).

[Monamona]

I believe plugins have to be GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

Any plugins cannot be made without GPL-covered 'avisynth.h'.

[Richard Berg]

Hrmm.

How does VDub do it?

[stickboy]

I imagine that VirtualDub really doesn't do it and that Avery just doesn't care. The VirtualDub filter SDK is GPL'd, and the header files state so quite clearly (unless there's a provision like this hidden somewhere in there).

[poptones]

I personally have no desire to work on an LGPL project. If I wanted a BSD like license I would be channeling my efforts in that direction.

That said, isn't there something in Microsoft's own licensing on these SDK libraries that prohibits GPL use?

[Belgabor]

Would it help to make just avisynth.h LGPL? Or somehow exculde plugins from needing to be GPLed in a statement?

Belgabor

[GuiltyX]

Since the inline function of several lines is contained in avisynth.h, I think that judgment of "avisynth.h is GPLed or not" is not so easily.
This suggests a possibility of saying that avisynth.h is also GPL.

[trbarry]

GPL is carefully crafted to be maximally consistant with the rest of copyright law. That means that it works best if you don't analize it too carefully or think about it too much.

I vote that we all assume Avisynth GPL is just fine the way it is and that it already allows folks to write closed source filters, especially we we enclose a special permission for that case like the one posted above.

- Tom

[Koepi]

Yeah, let's concentrate on development instead raise 20 licenese threads on every program we're doing here.

It just shows me that you aren't interested in the program, but want to profile yourself as the person who got it shut down.

_don't_ do that!

[frank]

GENAU. Du sprichst mir aus der Seele!! Wahre Genies haben nichts zu verbergen.

No plug-ins would be available without the sources of Avisynth!
GPL and open source is the way for us to make programs better. We have fun and need no business!

frank

[stickboy]

Originally posted by Koepi
It just shows me that you aren't interested in the program, but want to profile yourself as the person who got it shut down.

Well, I would think that there are a people who would like to write closed-source plug-ins but won't until the licensing issues are clear.

"Shut down" is an exaggeration... it'd only be a hindrance, since many plugins are already GPL'd, right?

[GuiltyX]

What was going there really?
There were those who say that it is violation of GPL about very excellent Avisynth plug-in at the time of a noise of XviD.
The author of the plug-in who heard it male all to off-line, and said, "Development is stopped."
We very regret it.

that's all...

Monamona and me love Avisynth

#By the way, are really those who know about IT(), DeDot(), AntiComb(), etc. how much were here?
#If it says that you do not know about these, I provide you with it
and have the preparation which makes it evaluate.

sorry for bad eng.

[GuiltyX]

i think Monamona considered seriously to GPL and it is only striving to get the guarantee of closed sauce development.
Please understand that.
Thank you all for the consideration.

[Guest]

@GuiltyX

I am interested in those filters, but only if source code is available. Is it available?

[Monamona]

First, I appreciate GuiltyX.
He tried to correct misunderstanding of the reason why I made
this thread.

What I would like to do here is making certain environment that
every developer can make their plugins freely.
As I mentioned above, one Japanese stopped to develop his amazing
plugins because of GPL.
The only way that he can resume it is to make avisynth LGPL
or something like that.
I just want to make him come back. That's it.

---
To neuron2
His source code is unavailable now. I think he doesn't want because
of some reason.
However, as Richard Berg wrote, "they are infinitely better than not having them at all." Right?

[Guest]

No, because I want to see his ideas and concepts and how they are implemented. All of mine are open book. That is what GPL is all about! I'm sure that avisynth.h could be explicitly released as an exception. But really, do you think anyone is going to go after him for including avisynth.h? No, it is clearly an excuse. He either has other motives, or he is using large chunks of code from Avisynth itself or other people's plugins. I'm sure we will see him selling his stuff very soon. :-)

[Monamona]

No way!
WE are pretty SURE that he NEVER EVER sell his plugins.

Do you really consider about the possibility "under some circumstances
like developers use some secret codes of their companies?"

Which do you like "eliminate useful plugins" or "keep GPL?"

If you still care about selling, we can put some clause like "if the developer refuse to show source code, he cannot sell the program," right?

[int 21h]

It could be the wine that I ingested with dinner, but damn, this thread confuses me. Maybe you should all just write in your native language, because I think the Fish (tm) would provide more understandable english