* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
- allow to configure the expected job runtime in the test spec
- remove link to EngineConfig and hard-wire the engine latency for now
... extended integration testing reveals two further bugs ;-)
... document deadline calculation
...using hard coded values instead of observation of actual runtimes,
but at least the calculation scheme (now relocated from TimeAnchor to JobPlanning)
should be a reasonable starting point.
TODO: test fails...
several years ago, it seemed like a good idea to incorporate
the link between nominal time and wall-clock time into a dedicated
anchor point, which also regulates the continued frame planning.
But it turned out that such a design mixes up several concepts
and introduces confusion regarding the meaning of "real time"
- latency can not be reasonably defined for a whole planning chunk
- skipping or sliding due to missed deadlines can not reasonably handled
within such an abstract entity; it must be handled rather at the
level of a playback process
- linking the frame grid generation directly to a planning chunk
undercuts the possible abstraction of a planning pipeline
basically we can pick just any convention here, and so we should pick the convention in a way
that makes most sense informally, for a *human reader*. But what we previously did, was to pick
the condition such as to make it simple in some situations for the programmer....
With the predictable result: even with the disappointingly small number of usages we have up to now,
we got that condition backwards several times.
OK, so from now on!!!
Time::NEVER == Time::MAX, because "never" is as far as possible into the future
