[Bug 554243] Review Request: moovida - Media Center

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554243

--- Comment #37 from Alex Lancaster <alexl at users.sourceforge.net> 2010-07-18 20:30:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #35)

> > Can you briefly outline the issues with Moovida 1.0?  Did they change the
> > license?  Can we cherry-pick stuff from their SVN/Git repo or whatever they use
> > even if they don't release proper tarballs?
> 
> Sorry Should have clarified. Moovida 1.0 is the same license and still has
> proper tarballs, nothing has changed, and thus there is nothing wrong with
> putting moovida 1.0 into Fedora.


Sorry, actually I misspoke (mistyped?) I meant what were the issues with
Moovida 2.0.  Since then I checked out the blogposts:

http://www.moovida.com/blog/2010/05/03/moovida-2-0s-stance-on-open-source-and-licensing/

and:

http://www.moovida.com/blog/2010/04/30/moovida-2-0-a-new-beginning/

and it does seem that 2.0 will (at least at first) have some proprietary
components and that they're moving away from Linux...  Can you clarify any
further about their long-range plans?

> > 
> > > On top of
> > > this, moovida 1.0 is no longer formerly supported by fluendo, so getting futher
> > > updates or bugs fixed in moovida may be tricky.
> > 
> > If that's the case, perhaps we could consider moving moovida to RPM Fusion
> > (assuming licensing would be OK for RPM Fusion)?  It seems like a lot of work
> > to get 1.x into Fedora if it isn't going to be maintained upstream.
> 
> More than happy to move this into RPM Fusion if that's what people feel is the
> most appropriate place.

RPM Fusion would only be appropriate for Moovida 2.x, and even then it would
require source code if it went in to the free RPM Fusion repository and would
need to be at least distributable as a binary for the non-free RPM Fusion repo.
 It isn't clear how that would work at the moment.  So I think that getting 1.x
into Fedora seems the best course at the moment until it's clear how 2.x could
be distributed.

> > Aside: It was annoying that they changed the name from elisa for no good
> > reason, creating churn (like the need for this re-review in the first place),
> > now they are retooling again so soon?  What's fluendo's strategy here? (feel
> > free to e-mail me offline since this is a bit off-topic for the review request)    
> 
> I don't profess to know things 100%, buy understanding is the name change and
> the complete rewrite for 2.0 is part of a strategy that was developed when
> Fluendo was acquired by another company (not 100% sure of this). Although
> www.fluendo.com maintains their linux focus, representatives at Moovida have
> come out and said that they are primarily focussing on the windows platform for
> Moovida 2.0, and at the moment there is no source code available for either
> windows or linux platforms (just packages for Ubuntu).
> 
> On top of this, the rather confusing post at [1] (see comments) implies that
> their work on Moovida 2.0 won't have source code made available and it will be
> under a more closed license, meaning there is little chance of it getting into
> Fedora.
> 
> There seems to be enough general interest in Moovida 1.0 to get it packaged for
> Fedora, and I am constantly on the lookout for a project looking to fork
> Moovida 1.0 and continue, but ultimately if the lack of a real solid upstream
> for fixes etc. is an issue we may have to abandon this package review or move
> it into RPM Fusion
> 
> [1] http://www.moovida.com/blog/2010/04/30/moovida-2-0-a-new-beginning/    

Yep, I think go ahead with getting 1.x into Fedora.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.