[ddutt@xxxxxxxxx]

Hi Brad,

If we can come up with an alternative proposal without altering the license,
that'd be great. I couldn't come up with one.

Brad Hards writes:
 > 1. This is a change to the existing license, and potentially needs to be 
 > approved by all copyright holders. What happens if someone says no?
I presume that we either cannot change or alternately remove the contribution
of that person. 

 > 2. Whether alternatives (such as the patent holders granting a restricted 
 > patent license for use of techniques potentially covered by patent) are 
 > compatible with the current license.
I don't know. Rather that debate legal language here (which may not even be
enough to convince lawyers), I'd like to see more decoders emerge out and
get back to coding.  

 > 3. Whether the plug-in API is sufficiently well defined (in a documentation 
 > sense, and also in a code stability sense) that this technique is 
 > practicable.
I believe it is and if not it can be made to be. I'll let people more
well-versed in this to answer,

Dinesh