X compression techniques (was Re: VNC server based on kdrive using damage extension?)

[Mike A. Harris]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Egbert Eich wrote:

> > I don't discount that the methods used in NX to accomplish it's 
> > goals are good ideas.  Rather, I think that they are rather good 
> > ideas, which should be investigated more closely.
> > 
> > However the NX implementation itself is not useful as GPL source 
> > code to those working on X11 under an MIT license.
>
>Right. At the moment this is a no issue as the technology lives
>on a proxy server.  I was suggesting to review the technology
>and see if it's worthwhile to integrate some parts of it into
>the server. Gian Filippo replied to this basically saying that
>the merit of keeping it separate is to avoid the introduction of
>another complicated element to the server at a neglegtible cost
>of performance. And he may be right.
>On the other hand I've talked to him a while back about the license
>issue and he didn't seem to be entirely opposed to relicense this
>software should we find this useful.
>He also expressed the same thing here on the list.

Should the software become relicensed to be MIT/X11 compatible 
license, then it would be much more valuable from the perspective 
of an X developer looking to improve the X server, etc.  If 
they're willing to relicense the code, then that is great news.


> > The usefulness of the software or the methods it uses to
> > accomplish it's goals are not what I'm bringing into question
> > however.  I'm just stating that the proprietary software
> > component built on top of it might be useful to some end users
> > out there as a solution, but that doesn't help the development
> > of improvements of X11 itself.  The GPL license of NX makes it's 
>
>Right. But noone tried to sell you a proprietary piece of software.
>However if we are permitted to take advantage of the non-propritary
>pieces of this software we may actually benefit.
>This has happened with other software for which proprietary pieces
>exist. 'cups' is an example here.

Sure, I agree with that.


> > own source code incompatible with being used directly in an X11 
> > implementation unless the authors of the implementation want to 
> > make their X11 GPL licensed.
>
>I know. I did not suggest anything like that. I was suggesting to 
>take a look at the technology and if we feel parts of it should
>really live in the Xserver then we still can discuss the licenese
>issue. Since Gian Filippo seems to own all the copyrights this
>issue may be resolvable.

Absolutely, this sounds like a good idea.

> > So while there are indeed things to be learned from NX, I don't 
> > consider it to be a godsend to X developmental issues, while it 
> > may indeed be fantastic for end users at this point.
>
>Well,
>
>a. How can you be so sure?
>b. Does this justify your somewhat hostile reaction?

I'm not hostile towards NX itself, nor it's developers, and if it 
has appeared that way to anyone, then I hope my intentions are 
clarified by this message.

However, on several occasions both in email and IRC I have had 
non-developer end users come into develmental discussions asking 
why we don't just use NX, and that irritates me, because we are 
developers trying to improve X.  We don't improve X by just using 
some other pre-existing software, however non-developer types 
just don't seem to "get" what our goals are.  Afterall, we could 
just disable the TCP transport entirely in X and just use VNC, or 
some other solution.  The fact we're not doing so indicates that 
we all believe that there are other options available, and that 
there are other paths we can take to work on a better solution in 
X in the future.

NX seems like wonderful technology, and so if it could be
relicensed to be compatible with the MIT license then it would be 
something useable inside X potentially, and any of my voiced 
opinions about it from an X11 developmental viewpoint more or 
less become null and void.

Apologies if I have seemed overly hostile in the discussion, as I 
do often get a bit short with end users who try to fit into 
developmental discussions without understanding things from a 
developer viewpoint.



-- 
Mike A. Harris