2012-04-03, 01:10
any update on development on this
(2012-03-05, 00:24)amitn Wrote: Hi rflores2323
Regarding making this project a plugin for XBMC, we looked into it but found too many limitations some which we did not find ways around therefore we have decided to go along the route that we have.
At the moment the XBMC core doesn't support the video rendering that we need to make Skype and Google Talk work from an addon.
I absolutely agree with you that it would be best practice (and best solution) to create an addon and not have to create a new build of XBMC and we would have done so if we had found a workaround to deal with the limitations we have encountered.
I would love to have an API for Video / Voice conversation in the XBMC core, same as PVR, but at the moment it seems a bit to big of a project for us over here.
I will appreciate if some one from the XBMC dev team could comment on that.
We still need to make some bugfix in Skype and to complete some task to compli with SkypeKit distribution terms (I hope you are not from China) but I think that we will have a version to distribute quite soon.
In any case we are working in parallel on a Google Talk integration but nothing that we can show at the moment, Google Talk integration will be much more easy to distribute and if the XBMC dev team would like to merge it upstream that would be great.
I would like to believe that the effort we are putting in to this project is not in vain and the XBMC community could enjoy form it. May be some of the changes will be merge upstream to the official XBMC build when it is mature enough.
If you want to contribute you are more than welcome.
Amit
rflores2323 Wrote:Shanee, go to the plugin subforum and post up there. There are stickies up there that can help you get started making an addon
Dev Plugin/Addon Subforum
Also this is looking awesome. Man o Man I cant wait to show my friends/fam. They are going to flip.
(2012-05-02, 21:35)amitn Wrote: The SkypeKit is like a standalone Skype that enables developers to add Skype functionality to their applications. However developers need to comply with SkypeKit distributions terms.These are practically the same Terms of Use distribution license concerns that Akezeke have regarding his SpotyXBMC2 addon integration development, right?
I have two problems with the distributions terms:
- Since XBMC is GPL I need to make sure that the Skype module will be kept close and Skype will not need to open the SkypeKit API to the public. I have little to no experience in doing so.
(2012-05-02, 21:35)amitn Wrote: Licence H.264 codec from http://www.mpegla.com/
(2012-05-03, 16:03)RockerC Wrote: These are practically the same Terms of Use distribution license concerns that Akezeke have regarding his SpotyXBMC2 addon integration development, right?
(2012-05-03, 16:03)RockerC Wrote: http://developer.skype.com/certify-marke...rms-of-use
(2012-05-03, 18:54)amitn Wrote:SpotyXBMC is not available as a downloadable binary version because it has the same issue with Spotify's Terms of Use distribution license as you have with the SkypeKit Terms of Use distribution license.(2012-05-03, 16:03)RockerC Wrote: These are practically the same Terms of Use distribution license concerns that Akezeke have regarding his SpotyXBMC2 addon integration development, right?I wasn't aware about SpotyXBMC2, I need to look more in to it, but at first look it is seems that there aren't any binary versions of SoptyXBMC, you need to register a developer account at Spoty, then you get an API key and can build SpotyXBMC ( Correct me if I'm wrong ).
The same module could work with the SkypeKit API. (Just for a note, a developer account at Skype cost 10$).
Quote:If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
Quote:Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? (#FSWithNFLibs)
If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.
So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?
If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without the non-free library. Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence on the non-free library.
Note that there may also be legal issues with combining certain non-free libraries with GPL-covered free software. Please see the question on GPL software with GPL-incompatible libraries for more information.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html...atibleLibs