Search Results

Search found 37 results on 2 pages for 'copyleft'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

  • Guest post: 2010 - Threats to copyleft

    <b>OSS Watch: </b>"Combining freedoms and copyleft in the Gnu GPL license (invented by Richard Stallman) was the cornerstone of free software. This is now questioned due to the proliferation of incompatible copyleft licenses."

    Read the article

  • Is there an open source license that allows any use, except within a GPL/copyleft project? [on hold]

    - by Marcos Scriven
    I would like to open source some code with a permissive license (say MIT/BSD) I would be happy for it to be used both commercially and in any open source project that is not copyleft (GPL being the main one obviously). I looked at the list of non-GPL compatible licenses here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses But none seemed to be quite what I wanted. Is there such a license already? If not, would it even be possible to do this? EDIT: I have been asked to edit this question to clarify. I'm not sure how it's unclear, as that wasn't stated. What I would like to know is simply the answer to the topic - can anyone point to a standard licence that is permissive as possible, while restricting use in copyleft licence. I'm not clear why the question would be suspended by the same person that edited spelling differences (apparently British English is a 'mistake') in the question earlier, and by another that had answered licencing questions in other posts.

    Read the article

  • Is there any copyleft (GPL-like) license with both the Affero and Lesser modifications?

    - by Ben Voigt
    Looking for a license that covers public network service, like AGPLv3, but like LGPL isn't infectious. Basically I wrote some useful helper functions I want to allow to be used in any work, including closed-source software, but I want to require improvements to MY CODE to be released back to me and the general public. Can you recommend a suitable license? It should also include some of the other AGPL-permitted restrictions (attribution, indemnity), either in the license text or as permitted variations.

    Read the article

  • GPL liscensed frameworks on eccommerce websites

    - by Adam McMahon
    Ok this may be a foolish question, but I just want some clarification on this. If you build a website on a GPL licensed web framework, let's say a browser based game or some kind of kind of sophisticated web application are you required to redistribute all the code? If this is so what licenses would allow you to build on top of an opensource project without requiring you to redistribute the code?

    Read the article

  • Choosing an open source license such that maximum value is added to a startup

    - by echo-flow
    There are many companies that produce open source software products, and many business models that these companies can use. I'm particularly interested in companies like 280 North, the company behind Objective-J and Cappucino frameworks. My understanding of this organization's business model is that they: worked to develop a tool which added significant value to developers, released the tool under an open source license, built a community around the tool (which was helped by the project's open source licensing), created interesting demos illustrating the project's value All of these things added value to the project, and the company that owned it. Finally, 280 North was sold to Motorola. My question has to do with the role of software licensing in this particular business model. 280 North licensed their software projects under the LGPL, which gave them some proprietary control over how the project could be used. I believe that the LGPL is what's known as a "weak copyleft" license, meaning that the project can be linked to, without the linking code also being licensed under the LGPL; but software derived directly from the project would need to be licensed under the LGPL. For web-oriented libraries in particular, weak copyleft, or non-copyleft licensing seems to be quite common; I can't think of a single example of a popular or well-known web-oriented library that is licensed under the GPL (or AGPL). The question then, is, how much value would a weak copyleft license like the LGPL add to a software venture like 280 North, versus a non-copyleft license, such as the BSD license or the Apache Software License? I'd really appreciate any insight anyone can offer into this, but I'd be most interested in answers that can cite other companies as case studies or examples.

    Read the article

  • Is my concept in open source license correct?

    - by tester
    I would like to justify whether my concept in the open source license is correct, as you know that, misunderstanding the terms may lead to a serious law sue. Thank you. The main difference among the open source license is whether the license is copyleft. Copyleft license means allow the others to reproduce, modify and distribute the products but the released product is bound by the same licensing restriction. That means they have to use the same license for the modified version. Also, the copyleft license require all the released modified version to be free software. On the other hand, if any others create derived work incorporating non-copyleft licensed code, they can choose any license for the code. The serveral kinds of license and comparsion GPL is a restrictive license. Software requires to released as GPL license if that integrate or is modified from the other GPL license software . The library used in developing GPL license software are also restricted to GPL and LGPL , proprietary software are not allowed to employ (or complied with) in any part of the GPL application. LGPL is similar to GPL , but was more permissive with regarding allow the using of other non-GPL software. BSD is relatively simple license, it allow developer to do anything on the original source code . The license holder do not hold any legal responsibilities for their released product. Apache license is evolved from the BSD license. The legal terms are improved and are written by legal professionals in a more modern way. It covers comprehensive intellectual property ownership and liability issues. Also, are there any popular license beside these? Thank you

    Read the article

  • A New Closed Source Viral License

    The copyleft provisions of the GPL (GNU General Public License) require that any changes or additions to a GPL licensed work must itself be licensed under terms that adhere to the GPL. Critics of these copyleft provisions have derogatively labeled the GPL as a viral license. Such criticism points out that any code that seeks to incorporate GPL licensed code must itself adhere to the terms of the GPL, thus potentially infecting other code with its restrictions. This has caused many developers of...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • FSFE Fellowship interview with David Reyes Samblas Martinez

    <b>FSFE:</b> "David Reyes Samblas Martinez is the founder of Spanish Copyleft Hardware store Tuxbrain, and attended the famous Open University of Catalunya. He's also the subject of this month's Fellowship interview, in which he answers questions on hardware manufacturing, e-learning and Free Software politics."

    Read the article

  • Open Source but not Free Software (or vice versa)

    - by TRiG
    The definition of "Free Software" from the Free Software Foundation: “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so. The definition of "Open Source Software" from the Open Source Initiative: Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. These definitions, although they derive from very different ideologies, are broadly compatible, and most Free Software is also Open Source Software and vice versa. I believe, however, that it is possible for this not to be the case: It is possible for software to be Open Source without being Free, or to be Free without being Open Source. Questions Is my belief correct? Is it possible for software to fall into one camp and not the other? Does any such software actually exist? Please give examples. Clarification I've already accepted an answer now, but I seem to have confused a lot of people, so perhaps a clarification is in order. I was not asking about the difference between copyleft (or "viral", though I don't like that term) and non-copyleft ("permissive") licenses. Nor was I asking about your personal idiosyncratic definitions of "Free" and "Open". I was asking about "Free Software as defined by the FSF" and "Open Source Software as defined by the OSI". Are the two always the same? Is it possible to be one without being the other? And the answer, it seems, is that it's impossible to be Free without being Open, but possible to be Open without being Free. Thank you everyone who actually answered the question.

    Read the article

  • Where can I buy freely redistributable (creative commons) game assets?

    - by Erlend
    I'd like to know about any 3D asset shops out there that specialize in game assets and, most importantly, license their assets under an open license like Creative Commons or similarly permissive. We are looking to buy some professional looking assets for use and redistribution with our open source 3D game engine. The problem is that all the commercial 3D assets we've come by are only sold under very restrictive licenses, which won't allow us to include the models in our code repository (since free code hosting repositories require that all your data, including media, is open source or otherwise copyleft) nor in turn redistribute the assets as part of our downloadable SDK. I realize this sounds like a weak business idea, since users could just buy the asset and start sharing it with everyone. But somehow this has worked for hundreds of WordPress theme shops, so I was hoping maybe someone's trying similar things for commercial game assets.

    Read the article

  • Proprietary software based on MIT license.

    - by Kevin_Jim
    As far as I understand. I can use a project licensed under MIT license into a proprietary software. Am I right? It dosen't force any copyleft and I don't have to say that my project is based on something else. That means I can fork the hell out of it, right? Can someone shed some light over this?

    Read the article

  • TraceMonkey and GNU GPL license

    - by JavaMan
    I am trying to embed a Javascript engine into my application. But the license for Mozilla Javascript engine is GNU/GPL/MPL based and I don't have the time and energy to digest the cryptic legal document. In short, does the license mean I need to publish my application's source code if I embed the engine into my own appli.? Something I think is quite impossible but as what i understand from the CopyLeft license, any work derived from modifying the source code means the derived work must be made open source as well.

    Read the article

  • Is there any boost-independent version of boost/tr1 shared_ptr

    - by Artyom
    I'm looking for independent implementation of boost/tr1 shared_ptr, weak_ptr and enable_shared_from_this. I need: Boost independent very small implementation of these features. I need support of only modern compilers like GCC-4.x, MSVC-2008, Intel not things like MSVC6 or gcc-3.3 I need it to be licensed under non-copyleft LGPL compatible license like Boost/Mit/3-clause BSD. So I can include it in my library. Note - it is quite hard to extract shared_ptr from boost, at least BCP gives about 324 files...

    Read the article

  • General questions regarding open-source licensing

    - by ndg
    I'm looking to release an open-source iOS software project but I'm very new to the licensing side of the things. While I'm aware that the majority of answers here will not lawyers, I'd appreciate it if anyone could steer me in the right direction. With the exception of the following requirements I'm happy for developers to largely do whatever they want with the projects source code. I'm not interested in any copyleft licensing schemes, and while I'd like to encourage attribution in derivative works it is not required. As such, my requirements are as follows: Original source can be distributed and re-distributed (verbatim) both commercially and non-commercially as long as the original copyright information, website link and license is maintained. I wish to retain rights to any of the multi-media distributed as part of the project (sound effects, graphics, logo marks, etc). Such assets will be included to allow other developers to easily execute the project, but cannot be re-distributed in any manner. I wish to retain rights to the applications name and branding. Futher to selecting an applicable license, I have the following questions: The project makes use of a number of third-party libraries (all licensed under variants of the MIT license). I've included individual licenses within the source (and application) and believe I've met all requirements expressed in these licenses, but is there anything else that needs to be done before distributing them as part of my open-source project? Also included in my project is a single proprietary, close-sourced library that's used to power a small part of the application. I'm obviously unable to include this in the source release, but what's the best way of handling this? Should I simply weak-link the project and exclude it entirely from the Git project?

    Read the article

  • "Viral" license that only blocks legal actions of user and developer against each other

    - by Lukasz Zaroda
    I was thinking a lot about software licensing lately, because I would like to do some coding. I'm not an expert in all those licenses, so I came up with my own idea, and before I will put in on paper, I would like to make sure that I didn't reinvent a wheel, so maybe I would be able to use something that exists. Main idea behind my license is to guarantee freedom of use the software, but not "freedom to" (positive) (e.g. freedom to having source code), but "freedom from" (negative) (strictly from legal actions against you). It would be "viral" copyleft license. You would be able to without fear do everything you want with the software (and binaries e.g. reverse engineering), as long as You will include information about author and/or authors, and all derivative works will be distributed with the same license. I'm not interested in anything that would restrict a freedom of company to do something like "tivoization". I'm just trying to accomplish something that would block any legal actions of user and developer, targeted against each other, with the exception of basic attribution. Does exist something like that?

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Public License Question

    - by ryanzec
    Let preface this by saying that I understand that any advice I may receive is not to be taken as 100% correct, I am just looking for what people's understand of what this license is. I have been looking for a library that allow be to deal with archived compressed files (like zip files) and so far the best one I have found is DotNetZip. The only concern I have is that I am not familiar with the Microsoft Public License. While I plan to release a portion of my project (a web application platform) freely (MIT/BSD style) there are a few things. One is that I don't plan on actually releasing the source code, just the compiled project. Another thing is that I don't plan on releasing everything freely, only a subset of the application. Those are reason why I stay away form (L)GPL code. Is this something allowed while using 3rd party libraries that are licensed under the Microsoft Public License? EDIT The part about the Microsoft license that concerns me is Section 3 (D) which says (full license here): If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. I don't know what is meant by 'software'. My assumption would be that 'software' only refers to the library included under the license (being DotNetZip) and that is doesn't extends over to my code which includes the DotNetZip library. If that is the case then everything is fine as I have no issues keeping the license for DotNetZip when release this project in compiled form while having my code under its own license. If 'software' also include my code that include the DotNetZip library then that would be an issue (as it would basically act like GPL with the copyleft sense).

    Read the article

  • I created a program based on an LGPL project, and I'm not allowed to publish the source code

    - by Dave
    I thought LGPL was a permissive license, just like MIT, BSD or Apache. But today I read, that only linking to LGPL (libraries etc) is allowed from closed-source code - other than that, it's copyleft - so I have to publish code that is based on an LGPL program. I created a program for my employer that is based on an LGPL program, but has considerable modifications to it. Of course, I am not allowed to put that modified source code out there. At the same time, I have to, if I distribute it (right?). So I wonder whether there is a workaround to this, so I can keep this closed-source (I wish I could publish the source) - any suggestions? My idea: can I put most functions of the original LGPL app into an external library, write the core executable from scratch, but refer back to the library for all functions that I haven't modified? Currently, everything is in a .jar file (it's Java/Swing). if you think my idea is legally/technically feasible - how much effort would it be to seperate what I wrote and what the original is? I'm not the most java savvy.

    Read the article

  • Picking the right license

    - by nightcracker
    Hey, I have some trouble with picking the right license for my works. I have a few requirements: Not copyleft like the GNU (L)GPL and allows for redistribution under other licenses Allows other people to redistribute your (modified) work but prevents that other people freely make money off my work (they need to ask/buy a commercial license if they want to) Compatible with the GNU (L)GPL Not responsible for any damage caused by my work Now, I wrote my own little license based on the BSD and CC Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licenses, but I am not sure if it will hold in court. Copyright <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved. Redistribution of this work, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. All redistributions must attribute <copyright holder> as the original author or licensor of this work (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). 2. All redistributions must be for non-commercial purposes and free of charge unless specific written permission by <copyright holder> is given. This work is provided by <copyright holder> "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed. <copyright holder> is not liable for any damage arising in any way out of the use of this work. Now, you could help me by either: Point me to an existing license which is satisfies my requirements Confirm that my license has no major flaws and most likely would hold in court Thanks!

    Read the article

  • New R Interface to Oracle Data Mining Available for Download

    - by charlie.berger
      The R Interface to Oracle Data Mining ( R-ODM) allows R users to access the power of Oracle Data Mining's in-database functions using the familiar R syntax. R-ODM provides a powerful environment for prototyping data analysis and data mining methodologies. R-ODM is especially useful for: Quick prototyping of vertical or domain-based applications where the Oracle Database supports the application Scripting of "production" data mining methodologies Customizing graphics of ODM data mining results (examples: classification, regression, anomaly detection) The R-ODM interface allows R users to mine data using Oracle Data Mining from the R programming environment. It consists of a set of function wrappers written in source R language that pass data and parameters from the R environment to the Oracle RDBMS enterprise edition as standard user PL/SQL queries via an ODBC interface. The R-ODM interface code is a thin layer of logic and SQL that calls through an ODBC interface. R-ODM does not use or expose any Oracle product code as it is completely an external interface and not part of any Oracle product. R-ODM is similar to the example scripts (e.g., the PL/SQL demo code) that illustrates the use of Oracle Data Mining, for example, how to create Data Mining models, pass arguments, retrieve results etc. R-ODM is packaged as a standard R source package and is distributed freely as part of the R environment's Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). For information about the R environment, R packages and CRAN, see www.r-project.org. R-ODM is particularly intended for data analysts and statisticians familiar with R but not necessarily familiar with the Oracle database environment or PL/SQL. It is a convenient environment to rapidly experiment and prototype Data Mining models and applications. Data Mining models prototyped in the R environment can easily be deployed in their final form in the database environment, just like any other standard Oracle Data Mining model. What is R? R is a system for statistical computation and graphics. It consists of a language plus a run-time environment with graphics, a debugger, access to certain system functions, and the ability to run programs stored in script files. The design of R has been heavily influenced by two existing languages: Becker, Chambers & Wilks' S and Sussman's Scheme. Whereas the resulting language is very similar in appearance to S, the underlying implementation and semantics are derived from Scheme. R was initially written by Ross Ihaka and Robert Gentleman at the Department of Statistics of the University of Auckland in Auckland, New Zealand. Since mid-1997 there has been a core group (the "R Core Team") who can modify the R source code archive. Besides this core group many R users have contributed application code as represented in the near 1,500 publicly-available packages in the CRAN archive (which has shown exponential growth since 2001; R News Volume 8/2, October 2008). Today the R community is a vibrant and growing group of dozens of thousands of users worldwide. It is free software distributed under a GNU-style copyleft, and an official part of the GNU project ("GNU S"). Resources: R website / CRAN R-ODM

    Read the article

  • Streaming desktop with avconv - severe sound issues

    - by Tommy Brunn
    I'm trying to do some live streaming in Ubuntu 12.10, but I'm having some problems with audio. More specifically, the quality is complete garbage and it's at least 10 seconds out of sync with the video. I'm using an excellent guide found here to set up my loopback devices so that I can combine the desktop audio with the microphone input. It seems to work, as I'm able to stream both audio and video to Twitch.tv. But, as I said, the audio quality is terrible. The microphone audio is very, very low, but if I increase it, I get a horrible garbled sound that is absolutely unbearable. Nothing like that is present during VoIP calls or when recording sound alone with the sound recorder, so it's not an issue with the microphone itself. The entire audio stream is also delayed about 10-15 seconds compared to the video stream. I put together an imgur album of my settings. Here is some example output from when I'm streaming: avconv version 0.8.4-6:0.8.4-0ubuntu0.12.10.1, Copyright (c) 2000-2012 the Libav developers built on Nov 6 2012 16:51:11 with gcc 4.7.2 [x11grab @ 0x162fd80] device: :0.0+570,262 -> display: :0.0 x: 570 y: 262 width: 1280 height: 720 [x11grab @ 0x162fd80] shared memory extension found [x11grab @ 0x162fd80] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate Input #0, x11grab, from ':0.0+570,262': Duration: N/A, start: 1353181686.735113, bitrate: 884736 kb/s Stream #0.0: Video: rawvideo, bgra, 1280x720, 884736 kb/s, 30 tbr, 1000k tbn, 30 tbc [alsa @ 0x163fce0] capture with some ALSA plugins, especially dsnoop, may hang. [alsa @ 0x163fce0] Estimating duration from bitrate, this may be inaccurate Input #1, alsa, from 'pulse': Duration: N/A, start: 1353181686.773841, bitrate: N/A Stream #1.0: Audio: pcm_s16le, 48000 Hz, 2 channels, s16, 1536 kb/s Incompatible pixel format 'bgra' for codec 'libx264', auto-selecting format 'yuv420p' [buffer @ 0x1641ec0] w:1280 h:720 pixfmt:bgra [scale @ 0x1642480] w:1280 h:720 fmt:bgra -> w:852 h:480 fmt:yuv420p flags:0x4 [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] VBV maxrate unspecified, assuming CBR [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 FastShuffle SSE4.2 [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] profile Main, level 3.1 [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] 264 - core 123 r2189 35cf912 - H.264/MPEG-4 AVC codec - Copyleft 2003-2012 - http://www.videolan.org/x264.html - options: cabac=1 ref=2 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x1:0x111 me=hex subme=6 psy=1 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=0 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=0 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=-2 threads=4 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=3 b_pyramid=0 b_adapt=1 b_bias=0 direct=1 weightb=0 open_gop=1 weightp=1 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc_lookahead=30 rc=cbr mbtree=1 bitrate=712 ratetol=1.0 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=0 qpmax=69 qpstep=4 vbv_maxrate=712 vbv_bufsize=512 nal_hrd=none ip_ratio=1.25 aq=1:1.00 Output #0, flv, to 'rtmp://live.justin.tv/app/live_23011330_Pt1plSRM0z5WVNJ0QmCHvTPmpUnfC4': Metadata: encoder : Lavf53.21.0 Stream #0.0: Video: libx264, yuv420p, 852x480, q=-1--1, 712 kb/s, 1k tbn, 30 tbc Stream #0.1: Audio: libmp3lame, 44100 Hz, 2 channels, s16, 712 kb/s Stream mapping: Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (rawvideo -> libx264) Stream #1:0 -> #0:1 (pcm_s16le -> libmp3lame) Press ctrl-c to stop encoding frame= 17 fps= 0 q=0.0 size= 0kB time=10000000000.00 bitrate= 0.0kbitframe= 32 fps= 31 q=0.0 size= 0kB time=10000000000.00 bitrate= 0.0kbitframe= 40 fps= 23 q=29.0 size= 44kB time=0.03 bitrate=13786.2kbits/s dup=frame= 47 fps= 21 q=31.0 size= 93kB time=2.73 bitrate= 277.7kbits/s dup=0frame= 62 fps= 23 q=29.0 size= 160kB time=3.23 bitrate= 406.2kbits/s dup=0frame= 77 fps= 24 q=23.0 size= 209kB time=3.71 bitrate= 462.5kbits/s dup=0frame= 92 fps= 25 q=20.0 size= 267kB time=4.91 bitrate= 445.2kbits/s dup=0frame= 107 fps= 25 q=20.0 size= 318kB time=5.41 bitrate= 482.1kbits/s dup=0frame= 123 fps= 26 q=18.0 size= 368kB time=5.96 bitrate= 505.7kbits/s dup=0frame= 139 fps= 26 q=16.0 size= 419kB time=6.48 bitrate= 529.7kbits/s dup=0frame= 155 fps= 27 q=15.0 size= 473kB time=7.00 bitrate= 553.6kbits/s dup=0frame= 170 fps= 27 q=14.0 size= 525kB time=7.52 bitrate= 571.7kbits/s dup=0 frame= 180 fps= 25 q=-1.0 Lsize= 652kB time=7.97 bitrate= 670.0kbits/s dup=0 drop=32 //Here I stop the streaming video:531kB audio:112kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead 1.345945% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] frame I:1 Avg QP:30.43 size: 39748 [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] frame P:45 Avg QP:11.37 size: 11110 [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] frame B:134 Avg QP:15.93 size: 27 [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] consecutive B-frames: 0.6% 0.0% 1.7% 97.8% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] mb I I16..4: 7.3% 0.0% 92.7% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] mb P I16..4: 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% P16..4: 49.1% 1.2% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% skip:47.4% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] mb B I16..4: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% B16..8: 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% direct: 0.0% skip:99.9% L0:42.5% L1:56.9% BI: 0.6% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 82.3% 87.4% 71.9% inter: 7.1% 8.4% 7.0% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] i16 v,h,dc,p: 27% 29% 16% 28% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 22% 21% 14% 8% 8% 8% 7% 5% 7% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] i8c dc,h,v,p: 47% 22% 20% 11% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] Weighted P-Frames: Y:0.0% UV:0.0% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] ref P L0: 96.4% 3.6% [libx264 @ 0x165ae80] kb/s:474.19 Received signal 2: terminating. Any ideas on how I can resolve this? The video delay is perfectly acceptable, so I wouldn't think that it's a network issue that's causing the delay in the audio. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2  | Next Page >