Please update opus-tools binaries at Rarewares Options

[Dukers]

Please update opus-tools with version 0.1.6/libopus 1.0.2. If possible backport flac input support added in commit 892fd929 just after 0.1.6.

http://rarewares.org/opus.php

[[JAZ]]

@saratoga: Your advice might be true, but definitely does not solve the problem.

@NullC: Do you need to re-read the three clauses of the BSD License, in which you are distributing the specification, the reference implementation and the "revised implementation"? (whatever that is)

Reading your post I really wondered if you were regretting releasing the code as open source. Does that really do a favour to the codec image?

Do you really think that Opus is that much different than LAME or Vorbis? Do you realize that here at hydrogenaudio, people have modified and improved the original implementations, making changes that have moved the codec to new standards? ( Original Dibrom tunings that created alt presets on LAME, Garf Vorbis tunings, aotuv Vorbis tunings, and recently halb27 tunings on LAME VBR).

Do you really have a reason to (almost) censor the curiosity and testing intentions of the people over here? Have we made and explicit recommendation to use builds from here against the official build?

As jensend has tried to explain to you, if anything, there's a communication problem over here between you and us. Not the builds.

[saratoga]

@saratoga: Your advice might be true, but definitely does not solve the problem.

What exactly is the problem are you expecting me to solve?

@NullC: Do you need to re-read the three clauses of the BSD License, in which you are distributing the specification, the reference implementation and the "revised implementation"? (whatever that is)

Why would someone need to re-read the BSD license exactly? This question doesn't really make sense.

[[JAZ]]

What exactly is the problem are you expecting me to solve?

You told a person that wanted to solve a problem (NullC being angry because HydrogenAudio distributed binaries of Opus directly from the git repository), to shut up because he wasn't helping. (More or less).

Why would someone need to re-read the BSD license exactly? This question doesn't really make sense.

Do you need to re-read it too?

CODE

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
...
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

There is no restriction on who can build that binary, there is no restriction on distributing that binary, and, obviously, there is no restriction in telling other people about the binary.


That's why I ended the post saying that If he's open to talk about it, we might find a common point that we can both agree. As it is, it gives a bad looking for an open source project to limit what you can do with the source (more so being BSD license, not GPL).