Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
1–10 of 99 posts
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#21. It sounds like they do not want outside contributors.
2. They might not use one internally or using something old that does not expose to the internet well.
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#3I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want.
On another topic, did anyone see the license section?
---
If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code (or else provide a way for your customers to perform this upgrade themselves). Similarly, you must allow any of your customers to - at their discretion - replace the LIVE555 libraries used by your product with their own version (that uses the same API). (Note that in particular, because Apple restricts which iOS apps are made available on their 'App Store', you cannot use the LIVE555 library code in an iOS app that's distributed through Apple's 'App Store'.)
---
Does the LGPL enforce this, or is this some extra requirement?
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#41. It sounds like they do not want outside contributors. 2. They might not use one internally or using something old that does not expose to the internet well.
From #mercurial in Freenode where I found this, "I hope he has some [VCS] internally. He still releases archives with the odd random file or line of testing code in though."
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#51. It sounds like they do not want outside contributors. 2. They might not use one internally or using something old that does not expose to the internet well.
That was my thought as well (regarding 1). That they treat this almost like a code dump of their latest version, take it and use it, or don't.
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#6I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…
The user-replaceable part is standard fare, but I've never heard about the forced upgrading part. That sounds pretty crazy. I guess if you follow the LGPL and allow a user to swap out the library you're covered, since they say "or". Maybe it's "LPGL or release updates until you die"?
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#7I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…
It seems to me that they don't actually WANT anyone to use it, and definitely not modifying the code... Really makes you wonder why they bothered to make it open source and LGPL licensed
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#8I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…
> when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon as possible to use the latest version of the LIVE555 library code
This is not a requirement of the LGPL, the rest is. A user must be able to replace a LGPL portion of a program. Dynamic linking is the way this is usually accomplished.
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#9I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…
the "upgrade it as soon as possible" part is an extra requirement
Re: Why do you not make the code available under a 'source code repository'?
#10I don't see an issue with this (am I supposed to? Do we demand everyone use git or similar now?). They can give you the source however they want. On another topic, did anyone see the license section? --- If you distribute a product (whether software or hardware; whether free or for pay) that uses the LIVE555 library code, then you must - when requested by either a customer, or Live Networks, Inc. - upgrade it as soon…
The LGPL requires that end users are able to replace LGPL libraries with new builds. The App Store creates a bit of an issue, but it's possible to update app libraries if your phone is jailbroken. You might also be able to modify and re-sign, but I'm not sure.
The LGPL doesn't require the developer to use a new version or provide updates at anyone's request.