DirectShowLib / BSD License

Dec 17, 2009 at 9:30 PM

Hi!

Thank you for your very innovative library. I'm generally C++ programmer, migrating to .NET and found this library, because of excellent EVR Custom Presenter. This is what I will use in my applications with my custom DirectShow code (I have needs for different graphs for tv recorder etc. never mind). It's really impressive and usefull. For example, I will not have to use Bitmap Mixer for OSD, but easier and more powerful WPF will do it.

It's great that WPF MK is made BSD also. My applications are not commercial, just for fun, but you never know, so I prefer that kind of licenses if I have choice...

To the point... You've merged DirectShowLib inside WPF MK. I don't know if it's ok to release your library in BSD License then, because of static linking with DirectShowLib which is LGPL (or maybe I'm wrong?). It's not my business anyway and I don't really care about it. But I think that it would be more useful if DSL would be in another project. Just think about it. People could have different projects which depends on DSL and WPF MK without duplicated classes. You could still modify DSL like adding new classes (without violating LGPL) and release WPF MK in BSD License. Also it would be nicer to have all DirectShow code (at least interopt classes) in separate place, shared with other projects that only depends on DirectShow...

 Anyway, thanks again for Custom Presenter. You've saved me months of working (if I ever would be able to complete it at all or even dare to try)...

Marek

P.S. Sorry for my bad English.

 

Coordinator
Dec 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM

I just had found out this restriction of the LGPL.  It's a shame the Dshow.NET guys will not reconsider changing to a less restrictive license.

I'll modify this soon.

 

Coordinator
Dec 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Also, thank you for letting me know!

Dec 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM

> It's a shame the Dshow.NET guys will not reconsider changing to a less restrictive license.

Yes, I agree. It's only a set of raw interfaces, nothing special to protect at all. But from the bright side the LGPL is always better then GPL :)

Feb 8, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Hi guys,

AFAIK LGPL license permits linking to DSL without making the program LGPL.

If developing a software that its business is not enhancing DSL,then it is not considered to be "Derivative work".

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Am i correct?

Shay

Coordinator
Feb 8, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Ok, it should be up to snuff now.