Nice! I'm excited about this.
Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
11–20 of 49 posts
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#12Or if you want something that works now, you can use Blender, which has a very full featured video editor built in to it, and has had for a long time.
Blender is a good option too. You can cut and do things very fast using full timeline with overdrop or the regular flow.
IMO for anything more complex than that the UI gets on your way. I even learned most of the keybinds but it just doesn't feel intuitive.
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#13Nice! I'm excited about this. Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? No, you never ever want that happens, that's when copyleft comes into play, it's ideal for applications like this.
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#14Not to mention Kdenlive, which is being actively developed again and has been the most capable and stable of the free video editors I've used this past year (including Openshot, Pitivi, and Flowblade)
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#15Not to mention Kdenlive, which is being actively developed again and has been the most capable and stable of the free video editors I've used this past year (including Openshot, Pitivi, and Flowblade)
is there a way to get Kdenlive in a single folder with all it's dependencies, isolated? or even the new version that's using KF5
I'm not using KDE and had a few problems in the past after pulling too many things.
> 0 upgraded, 109 newly installed, 0 to remove and 30 not upgraded. After this operation, 289 MB of additional disk space will be used.
edit: nevermind, daily-builds https://kdenlive.org/download-development but it still needs some things installed
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#16Nice! I'm excited about this. Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? No, you never ever want that happens, that's when copyleft comes into play, it's ideal for applications like this.
> Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor?
How is that a bad thing? I think that's a zero sum game way of looking at it.
No damage is done if someone makes a closed source version. They can add value and stimulate competition. More often, they fail.
Occasionally, core developers may enrich and provide additional functionality upon a permissive core. Why not look at Postgres as an example?
And what harm is done? Lost code contributions? Some have no interest in collaborating on software they can't incorporate / copy from later without restriction. It takes time to wrap ones brain around a codebase.
Why would someone take time to understand the internals of a GPLv3 app, when they could never incorporate pieces of it in their code later on?
> it's ideal for applications like this.
Ideal is subjective. Judging by the above, it seems as if enforcing envy trumps programmers doing as they wish with the code.
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#17Nice! I'm excited about this. Why GPLv3? Why not make the license permissive as possible?
Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? No, you never ever want that happens, that's when copyleft comes into play, it's ideal for applications like this.
> Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor?
Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if the downstream vendor is smart, to result in substantial contributions back to the core, because the downstream vendor can't get community maintenance to control costs without contributing stuff back to the community.)
Works for a variety of existing permissively licensed software for which their proprietary downstream versions, the sellers of which are also sponsors of and code contributors to the open source project.
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? No, you never ever want that happens, that's when copyleft comes into play, it's ideal for applications like this.
> Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? How is that a bad thing? I think that's a zero sum game way of looking at it. No damage is done if someone makes a closed source version. They can add value and stimulate competition. More often, they fail. Occasionally, core developers may enrich and provide additional functionality upon a permissive core. Why not look at Post…
> Why would someone take time to understand the internals of a GPLv3 app, when they could never incorporate pieces of it in their code later on?
...to make it better for their uses, rather than their products? "Enforcing envy," though--please, be more of a jerk.
I'm curious as to what large-scale applications have you developed and released under a permissive license that make you such an authority on what others should do with tens of thousands of their man-hours.
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? No, you never ever want that happens, that's when copyleft comes into play, it's ideal for applications like this.
> Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if t…
Personally speaking: I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries. I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications, and honestly that's the one place where I'll throw a bone to the free software folks.
Re: Shotcut – A free, open-source, cross-platform video editor
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although permissive licenses are great for libraries, they aren't that good for applications. Why would you let someone make a closed source version of your open source video editor? Because you believe that open source actually works and is efficient in practice, such that even if someone makes and sells a proprietary derivative, it is more likely to grow the pie than to harm the open source base (and likely, if t…
Personally speaking: I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries . I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications , and honestly that's the one place where I'll throw a bone to the free software folks.
> I think open source/permissive licensing works for libraries. I think it's been amply demonstrated that that doesn't work well at all for applications
PostgreSQL is an application, not a library. It is permissively licensed. It has at least one major proprietary downstream derivative that contributes back significantly to the core. Its usually recognized as a successful open source RDBMS.
Please explain to me how it is "amply demonstrated" that permissive licensing "doesn't work at all for applications"?