.mp4 support in browser widget--Windows

[Paul Dupuis]

As customers once had to download and install Quicktime for Windows to 
use a wide variety of media in Revolution/Livecode Standalones under 
Windows (XP, 7, 8.x, 10, 11), when QT for Win became obsolete, we just 
switched to directing customers to download and install LAV Filters 
instead. They do this as a separate install, done by the end user. So 
far, this has not seemed to be an issue or inhibited adoption. It also 
does not run afoul of any licensing issues with embedding LAV Filters in 
a LC standalone.

Regardless, if you want media file parity with macOS on Windows in 
Livecode and do not want to wait for whatever dp version of LC 10 might 
have MMF in it, then you need to add a codec pack for DirectShow. There 
are other options for additional DirectShow codecs to LAV Filters. I 
can't recall any of them - just that we reviewed a bunch, most of which 
were commercial and required licensing. LAV Filters was reliable, 
functional, easy to install, and free. I'm not endorsing it for your 
application or anyone else's, just noting what worked for us.


On 7/8/2024 1:28 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
> Paul Dupuis wrote:
>
>> There ARE methods to compress and store a 3rd party library
>> or application as a property in a Livecode standalone and
>> have the standalone on start up check (if there is a file
>> ... or if there is a folder ...) for the app's presence and
>> if not present, install it by uncompressing and writing it
>> as a bnfile to the install location.
> ...
>> First, you may want to manually install LAV Filters and see
>> if it has the codecs for the media formats you want.
>
> LAV Filters appear to be distributed under GPL v2:
> https://github.com/Nevcairiel/LAVFilters/blob/master/COPYING
>
> This invites an interesting exploration of the boundaries of GPL rights/responsibilities inheritance: does distributing GPL components within an app require the app distributing them to also be GPL?
>
>
> I've seen many cases the other way around, FOSS projects like Ubuntu where some users can benefit from prioprietary packages like NVidia device drivers. Ubuntu and others seem content to have resolved the issue by not including components with incompatible licenses in their distributions, instead providing links the user may choose to follow to install them.
>
> But the case in this thread is the inverse, a proprietary system with embedded distribution of Free and Open Source components. I haven't seen this before, so I did a quick search to see how others have handled it.  Here are a few of those discussions:
>
> "Is it legal to use GPL code in a proprietary, closed-source program by putting it in a separate, standalone program?"
> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7078/is-it-legal-to-use-gpl-code-in-a-proprietary-closed-source-program-by-putting-i
>
> "Distributing a proprietary application together with GPL software"
> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/211250/distributing-a-proprietary-application-together-with-gpl-software
>
> "Can I use GPL software in a commercial application"
> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/47032/can-i-use-gpl-software-in-a-commercial-application
>
> "Can I use GPL, LGPL, MPL licensed packages with my application and make it closed source?"
> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/125606/can-i-use-gpl-lgpl-mpl-licensed-packages-with-my-application-and-make-it-close
>
> "Proprietary software using GPL modules"
> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1459/proprietary-software-using-gpl-modules
>
> "Can I use GPL libraries in a closed source project if only the output is distributed?"
> https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-use-gpl-libraries-in-a-closed-source-project-if-only-the-output-is-distrib
>
>
> Spoiler: no one in those discussions has a definitive answer, but there is a general trend toward USING GPL components being viewed as okay but drawing the line at DISTRIBUTING those GPL components within a proprietary app.
>
> And given both the rarity and the subtlety of details in such circumstancs, even the GPL FAQ more or less punts on this question:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ManyDifferentLicenses
>
>
> Of course I'm not an attorney, and even if I were I'm not contracted as your attorney, so nothing I write can be construed as legal advice.
>
> But as someone who has a personal hobby of reading IP case law, and has contractual requirements in most of my professional work to demonstrate a reasonable good-faith effort to help my clients avoid potential risks with IP licensing, I tend to err on the side of "When in doubt, leave it out."
>
> In cases where the best way to handle someone else's work is unclear, I often find it most useful to get clarification from the author of the work.  As the copyright holder, they would be in a position to grant, or deny, specific use cases.
>
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> FourthWorld.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode