* 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.
* most usages are drop-in replacements
* occasionally the other convenience functions can be used
* verify call-paths from core code to identify usages
* ensure reseeding for all tests involving some kind of randomness...
__Note__: some tests were not yet converted,
since their usage of randomness is actually not thread-safe.
This problem existed previously, since also `rand()` is not thread safe,
albeit in most cases it is possible to ignore this problem, as
''garbled internal state'' is also somehow „random“
...and this line of analysis brings us deep into the ''Buffer Provider''
concept developed in 2012 — which appears to be very well to the point
and stands the test of time.
Adding some ''variadic arguments'' at the right place surprisingly leads
to an ''extension point'' — which in turn directly taps into the
still quite uncharted territory interfacing to a **Domain Ontology**;
the latter is assumed to define how to deal with entities and relationships
defined by some media handling library like e.g. FFmpeg.
So what we're set to do here is actually ''ontology mapping....''
The immediate next step is to build some render nodes directly
in a test setting, without using any kind of ''node factory.''
Getting ahead with this task requires to identify the constituents
to be represented on the first code layer for the reworked code
(here ''first layer'' means any part that are ''not'' supplied
by generic, templated building blocks).
Notably we need to build a descriptor for the `FeedManifold` —
which in turn implies we have to decide on some fundamental aspects
of handling buffers in the render process.
To allow rework of the `ProcNode` connectivity, a lot of presumably obsoleted
draft code from 2011 has to be detached, to be able to keep it in-tree
for further reference (until the rework and refactoring is settled).
As outlined in #1367, the integration effort requires some rework
of existing code, which will be driven ahead by the `NodeLinkage_test`
* redefine Node Connectivity
* build simple `ProcNode` directly in scope
* create an `TurnoutSystem` instance
* perform a ''dummy Node-Invocation''
