Possible MediaCoder GPL violation of FFmpeg (2009)

msg5911 (view) Author: Dark Shikari Date: 2009-06-10.21:14:07 According to various posts on Doom9, MediaCoder (http://mediacoder.sourceforge.net/) uses custom patches in their build of mplayer but refuses to distribute source or patches. They also violate the license of various other items they distribute (Nero AAC encoder, etc). I'd link to the original thread, but it was deleted per http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1295674&postcount=3 . msg6085 (view) Author: cehoyos Date: 2009-06-18.19:40:14 I downloaded MediaCoder-0.7.1.4433.exe (size 23253681, md5sum 97db7e15a1fae4244e5f7f92d2f8ad13, uploaded to incoming/issue1162) and unpacked it with 7z. It contains ffmpeg.exe, mplayer.exe, mencoder.exe, x264.exe, xvidcore.dll and many others. Some of those files are encrypted, but others are not, so while I would need some help in decrypting, I still saw enough proof to put MediaCoder on shame. (No sources visible.) (Funny) EULA uploaded - still contains MPL references... msg6155 (view) Author: cehoyos Date: 2009-06-23.22:50:17 Does anybody know how to remove this software from sourceforge.net? msg6178 (view) Author: compn Date: 2009-06-24.21:48:14 send sf a dmca notice... they seem to respond to those very quickly. msg6181 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-06-25.14:39:25 I asked SFLC to send a takedown notice to SF. msg6236 (view) Author: compn Date: 2009-06-28.12:24:54 so hows that going? i assume they check the binaries for evidence of violation. then they send a mail requesting source, and wait two weeks for reply? then they send the dmca notice? has anyone had good communication with the sflc? msg6400 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.06:52:18 MediaCoder uses unpatched FFmpeg and very light patched MPlayer (added pipe fd as input file name, no problem to publish the patch if any one is interested). It does not violiate license of FFmpeg. msg6401 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.08:31:46 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 06:52:18AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > MediaCoder uses unpatched FFmpeg and very light patched MPlayer (added pipe fd > as input file name, no problem to publish the patch if any one is interested). This is irrelevant. > It does not violiate license of FFmpeg. Please do not make false claims here, we already gathered ample proof of your license violations! Diego msg6402 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.09:06:43 Actually I am quite willing to publish the patch. I will do this soon. msg6403 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.09:08:17 The ffmpeg bundled with MediaCoder is even not built by myself. They obtained from http://oss.netfarm.it/mplayer-win32.php. msg6404 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.09:10:58 All the mplayer.exe, mencoder.exe, ffmpeg.exe are not encrypted at all. They are packed with upx. Is this wrong? msg6405 (view) Author: banan Date: 2009-07-09.09:16:09 Stanley Huang wrote: > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > All the mplayer.exe, mencoder.exe, ffmpeg.exe are not encrypted at all. They are > packed with upx. Is this wrong? > No, just look through the LGPL license that follows FFmpeg and abide by it. Currently you are not following a few sections of it. MvH Benjamin Larsson msg6406 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.09:34:13 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:08:17AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > The ffmpeg bundled with MediaCoder is even not built by myself. They obtained > from http://oss.netfarm.it/mplayer-win32.php. This is - again - irrelevant. I suggest you read both the GPL and the LGPL as you are making quite a few statements that clearly show that you are uninformed and haven't read the licenses. msg6407 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.09:48:32 Please point out where did I violate the license (assuming that I've published the patch). I remember clearly about 4 years ago, I asked whether invoking MPlayer from a non-GPL program violates GPL in MPlayer's developer mail-list and I got the answer of no. msg6408 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.09:57:19 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:48:32AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > Please point out where did I violate the license (assuming that I've published > the patch). Publishing a patch is completely unrelated to abiding by the license. > I remember clearly about 4 years ago, I asked whether invoking > MPlayer from a non-GPL program violates GPL in MPlayer's developer > mail-list and I got the answer of no. This does not excuse you from following MPlayer's license terms. Now please stop parading your ignorance around on our issue tracker. Get informed *now*. There is no substitute for reading the licenses. You are not paying us to provide legal services to you, so it's not our obligation to spend our valuable time explaining licensing issues to you in every last detail. Spend your own time getting up to speed with (L)GPL licensing or hire one of us if you wish to have it all spelled out patiently and in excruciating detail. msg6410 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.10:20:12 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:14:00AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > Here is the MPlayer patch. Some modifications is not essential for MediaCoder. Here is not exactly the optimal place to publish an MPlayer patch. Let me make this crystal-clear: Publishing this patch is far from enough to fulfill your obligations under the GPL. msg6411 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.10:31:48 I am just trying to solve the license issue with FFmpeg. I don't understand why you have such a negative attitude. I will rewrite the EULA. It's just one I copied from Internet. No reverse-engineering terms right? msg6412 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.10:37:38 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:31:48AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > I am just trying to solve the license issue with FFmpeg. I don't understand why > you have such a negative attitude. Because we have to deal with ignorance on a daily basis and trust me, you get worn out after repeating things over and over and over again. > I will rewrite the EULA. It's just one I copied from Internet. No > reverse-engineering terms right? Why do you continue to stubbornly refuse to read the GPL and the LGPL? Do you think you will suffer bodily harm from reading two licenses? In the time we wasted going back and forth here, you would already have finished reading them... msg6413 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.10:45:27 OK, master, we are ignorant people and beg me some time to study your GPL bible. As far as I know, lots of people just ignore your shame list and live a good life. I am just here responding actively but got a very unpleasant mood. msg6414 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.10:51:16 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:45:27AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > OK, master, we are ignorant people and beg me some time to study your GPL bible. Look, I can paste the text into an email or you can look it up yourself. The volume of text you have to read remains the same. > As far as I know, lots of people just ignore your shame list and live a good life. They are starting to hear from our lawyers from the Software Freedom Law Center. IIRC we currently have 3 cases pending and they will not get away easily. > I am just here responding actively but got a very unpleasant mood. You got upset responses because you claimed that we were wrong and you had not committed any license violation whatsoever. This is of course preposterous and begs for a hostile response. If you had arrived here with a different attitude, we would have reacted differently. Also, I consider it rude to just use a software and never bother to read or get to know its licensing terms. msg6416 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-07-09.12:14:11 the SFLC is actively on this one and since you made money off us while blatantly violating every term of the GPL & LGPL, I won't reinstate your license until you settle with them and us. msg6418 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.12:17:46 MediaCoder is a freeware and I charge people for NOTHING. msg6419 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.12:18:39 Every term? Are you speaking responsibly? msg6420 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.12:20:35 I am having a sense of extremism here. msg6421 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.12:27:26 If it is so difficult to solve the conflict, I'd rather choose to give up. msg6422 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.16:32:35 EULA updated msg6423 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-07-09.16:38:50 Faac license is not lgpl and is incompatible with gpl/lgpl. Anyone knows helix mp3 encoder license? msg6424 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-09.17:38:20 What license is FAAC under then? Helix MP3 encoder is licensed uner RealNetworks Community Source License. msg6427 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.21:41:51 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:38:20PM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > What license is FAAC under then? FAAC is nonfree, as we recently discovered. The FAAC homepage has since been updated: http://www.audiocoding.com/faac.html > Helix MP3 encoder is licensed uner RealNetworks Community Source License. Where did you find this encoder and its license? I cannot find either. msg6428 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.21:54:23 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 04:32:35PM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > EULA updated This is much better. > FAAC > Copyright (C) 2003-2005 M. Bakker, Nero Software AG > Distributed under LGPL FAAC is nonfree. > Helix MP3 Encoder > Copyright (C) 2003-2006 RealNetworks > Distributed under RCSL Where is this license? > libogg, libvorbis and libtheora, libspeex libraries > Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Xiph.org Foundation > Distributed in public domain These are licensed under more of a 3-clause BSD license. > Monkey's Audio > Copyright (C) 2000-2004 by Matthew T. Ashland > Distributed under Monkey's Audio License Agreement This is nonfree. http://www.monkeysaudio.com/license.html msg6429 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-09.21:55:46 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:12:29PM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > As for the GPL text, I have read it many years ago, as MediaCoder is originally > distributed under GPL. At this moment, please forgive me that my native language > is not English, I am just still not able to find out much violations except for > some conflicts in the EULA which is due to my negligence. You are still not distributing source. msg6430 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-10.02:50:33 I obtained helix mp3 encoder here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=35540&st=0&p=313464 The license is in the source package. msg6431 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-10.02:54:14 The updated MediaCoder distribution is available here: http://mc.broadintel.com/dl/MediaCoder-0.7.1.4475.exe I will further update the EULA. If there is no more conflict, please remove MediaCoder from this list. msg6445 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-10.23:13:00 On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:17:46PM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > MediaCoder is a freeware and I charge people for NOTHING. What a sad joke. msg6446 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-07-10.23:13:30 On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 02:54:14AM +0000, Stanley Huang wrote: > > Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: > > The updated MediaCoder distribution is available here: > http://mc.broadintel.com/dl/MediaCoder-0.7.1.4475.exe > > I will further update the EULA. If there is no more conflict, please remove > MediaCoder from this list. As we already said, the EULA is not the main problem. msg6447 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-11.04:26:03 I've spent time and efforts on this issue, then could you please spend one minute to speak out the problem, if you have a little bit will to have this issue fixed. I've read the GPL text and forgive that due to my limited intellect, I still have no idea about what remains to do to fix the issue. msg6448 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-11.04:28:49 If you mean the source code thing, The source code of the previous open-sourced version of MediaCoder is still available on SourceForge. The current version is no longer open-sourced. So I referred to the EULA of foobar2000. msg6449 (view) Author: stanley Date: 2009-07-11.04:31:37 >> >> Stanley Huang <[email protected]> added the comment: >> >> MediaCoder is a freeware and I charge people for NOTHING. >What a sad joke. MediaCoder is free that's no doubt and not a joke at all. I do get some revenue from the bundling OpenCandy in the installer, so is this something really make you guys so unhappy? msg6513 (view) Author: AzureSky Date: 2009-07-20.20:34:18 Ok, So wheres a copy of the GPL/LGPL thats in plane easily understood English? I read the damn thing and despite my vocabulary being quite extensive it was confusing and some parts made little sense. Would Stanley putting up source for each version of each FFmpeg product hes used be required? would just the most current version he is using be enought? Would including the source for all FFmpeg componants used in the installer make you happier? Im trying to Figure this out not only for him, But because I have a friend who is working on an encoding app to use with sansa media players and I dont want him to get attacked by FFmpeg if he ends up having to use any of your work. Also a note, In the time diego has spent attacking, brating and insulting stanley the problems could have been worked out and the issue closed. diego please do yourself and the FFmpeg project a favor and rather then make an ass of yourself and the FFmpeg project either refrain from posting if you cant be helpful OR post something helping people who are not in compliance get in compliance. msg6514 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-07-20.21:10:41 hi, if your product is GPL, we are happy to help you. Simply come on IRC and we'll try to assist you where you can. Basic rules: - release all sources under GPL/LGPL (and no EULA saying otherwise) - give proper credit - send us patches And we'll be happy. If your product is not - in particular if it is payware, then don't expect us to sit back and relax. You're making money while ripping us off of our blood-and-sweat product. You will pay for that. You can ask us for advice, but we'll charge consultancy fees for that. You can ask a lawyer at the SFLC or elsewhere, their consultancy fees will be higher. If you want to be safe, make sure you're 100% compliant before releasing, because once you've released and you're violating our rights, we'll come after you. msg6515 (view) Author: AzureSky Date: 2009-07-20.21:20:48 ok, so sanley needs to include source code in his installer AND supply source code links on his website on top of including credits to ffmpeg in the EULA? When hes ready I will get my friend to join IRC and talk to you guys, and the project hes working to get info to start would be freeware. msg7444 (view) Author: derickmoxy Date: 2009-10-12.07:18:27 re: msg6155 > remove from sourceforge Since MediaCoder is NOT OSS it does not belong on SourceForge. Voice your removal request: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/newticket msg7445 (view) Author: derickmoxy Date: 2009-10-12.07:22:22 ex: https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/ticket/5574 msg7447 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-10-12.13:24:18 Please stay off the priority. Stanley has been in violation and thus until we reinstate his license, he remains in violation. msg7933 (view) Author: nhaskins Date: 2009-11-18.05:29:49 I've seen this issue unresolved for a while now and I just wanted to add, I'm also unclear on exactly what must be done, but just to sum up... Since Stanley is not distributing MediaCoder as OSS he isn't allowed to include FFmpeg in his distribution, thus if he want's to link his closed source program to FFmpeg he must have people download FFmpeg seperatley, and then have MediaCoder link into it (like how Audacity links to LAME_enc.dll for example). Is this the correct solution for this problem? I don't want to nag, or beat a dead horse (get it nag... horse... <facepalm />), but I'm just a little confused myself as to what exactly is expected. You people have done an awesome work, it's a real gem of FOSS. Thanks. msg7948 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-11-19.22:57:05 Here's how it usually works: 1) we demand acknowledgement of (past violation). This is required, it is not optional, and it is important. Regardless of the state of the current version (it might even be compliant! who knows), past violations void the license (forever, until reinstated by us). We want him to be aware of this. 2) we demand solving the actual infringement of the current version. Last time I checked, it was still infringing, but I don't feel like checking until (1) is taken care of. 3) once the infringement is solved, we'll need monetary damages for the past infringement. (4) at this point, we might consider reinstating his license (generally, (3) and (4) would go together, i.e. Stanley pays us and we reinstate his license, as by a contract). Note how these things work in order. Stanley would do well to start with (1), i.e. publically acknowledge the (past / present) violation and apologize deeply and humbly for that, stating his best intent to solve it as swiftly as possible. Once that's done and he's open to a discussion on how the free licensing is interpreted by the people that hold the copyrights of this project (i.e. me, Diego, Carl Eugen and all others that contribute to FFmpeg), then we can discuss together over how he would best fix his software to not be in violation. Lastly, we might then reinstate his license when financial compensation for past damages has been provided, as per (3) and (4). Until then, regardless of what you or he says, and regardless of the state of his software, he remains in violation. msg7990 (view) Author: tripex Date: 2009-11-24.18:20:51 Ok, to get something clear, that I found during reading this "issue": He should pay you because he asked for donations for HIS software and some ads on his site HE is hosting. He never asked for donations for YOUR FFmpeg code or whatever. Since he does violate some parts of the (L)GPL, he could fix this, right, but to assume that his donation buttons means to pay for your code is little bit .... hm, forget it. But instead of helping him to get rid of the violation, you insult him, tell him you will get your lawyers and such things, well, funny, if he was Microsoft ok, I would understand such behaviour, but doing such things with a programer, who did a real good job on his GUI and patches for some tools beneath this GUI and who offers his program for a long time now without any real alternative to this tool (I tried many tools, but not one was as good as MediaCoder.) for FREE and only asks for donations for HIS work on the GUI and the website/hosting/forums - well, no comment on this. Freeware is the right word for his tool he provides as a GUI for various tools. I read the GPL and the LGPL any many parts of it are bit confusing, even for a programmer that I am and people are sometimes good in programming stuff but not in legal things like licenses or how to interpret them the right way. If you are really going to follow any violation, you got a large job to do, I heared of some software that is sourced close and uses ffmpeg on the back and the company using it is seeling this software for 49$ per Unit and violat in any way against the GPL, but never heard of that you are after them to change this or pay you for their violation. Na, it's late in my country, I'm sleepy and I wrote to much confusing stuff. Conclusion: People that are willed to do everything right shouldn't be attacked and get down to the gorund, they should get help, or someday you wake up, someone else wrote such a thing like ffmpeg from the scratch and is nicer to people that are willed to fix violation problems and you are alone without any userbase. You wouldn't be the first neither the last one. msg7991 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-11-24.19:14:19 > But instead of helping him to get rid of the violation I'm sorry, am I Santa Claus? Don't get confused about FFmpeg and our work being free. **FFmpeg** is free. We are not, and definitely not for something that is so un-amusing as the legal garbage can of somebody who violates my copyrights. msg7995 (view) Author: diego Date: 2009-11-25.00:32:25 On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:20:51PM +0000, tripeX wrote: > > If you are really going to follow any violation, you got a large job to do, Do you seriously think we don't know? > I heared of some software that is sourced close and uses ffmpeg on the > back and the company using it is seeling this software for 49$ per > Unit and violat in any way against the GPL, but never heard of that > you are after them to change this or pay you for their violation. The reason is that we are not aware of the violation. If you tell us who they are, we will go after them. > Na, it's late in my country, I'm sleepy and I wrote to much confusing stuff. I agree. > Conclusion: > People that are willed to do everything right shouldn't be attacked and get down > to the gorund, they should get help, or someday you wake up, someone else wrote > such a thing like ffmpeg from the scratch and is nicer to people that are willed > to fix violation problems and you are alone without any userbase. You wouldn't > be the first neither the last one. Rewrite FFmpeg from scratch? lol :) Anyway, vlc will likely pass the 100 million download mark next year. Fear not for our userbase. Diego msg7997 (view) Author: tripex Date: 2009-11-25.17:11:06 See Diego, I understand your points and the others in this discussion and I had to handle myself violation of licenses in the past but in another way with big companys on the other side. That is real trouble and can get your wiped out sometimes, well our company was simply bought after 3 years of fighting agains copyright violations by the violating company. That was the day, when I decided to never ever give away my code to other people. Well I broke with this and found some other guys using my code for their work and had some discussions with them like you have here. And some of them never where aware of all parts of the license terms because they where really confusing in some parts, some of this guys where brilliant coders but sucked when it comes to legal stuff. With MediaCoder and stanley, well I found hios "premium" services and think I got what you mean with profit right now and thats something I agree is not ok, but since I have not my hands on some on his premium services/tools I don't know if there is ffmpeg in it. @stanley: You should work together with these guys to get things done. MediaCoder has a good userbase, but its crumnling because of this situation, I followed it on the doom9 forums in my country and the .org forums. I know that I may not be in the position to give you advices, but if you love code and the freedom of choice like others do, you will get the point. @Diego: Na, got me wrong with that FFmpeg thing, forget it. Btw. I downloaded VLC around 400 times this year for my computers, stats means nothing or like someone said (It's said it was Winston Churchill, but thats not clear if he did.): "I don't trust statistics, which I didn't manipulated myself." And even late in here xD Bye. ^^ msg7998 (view) Author: rbultje Date: 2009-11-25.17:21:56 > @stanley: You should work together with these guys to get things done. +1 - fully agree. msg10101 (view) Author: AzureSky Date: 2010-04-12.00:10:55 When will you be getting off your asses and suing stan? i mean you made it very clear that was your intent. I would like to see the massive monetary award you would earn from his "profiting" from your hard work. Maby had you been nicer he would have worked this issue out to your satisfaction by now, but you have been rude, threatening and outright unfriendly. Also note, any lawer he would contact would tell him NOT to admit any wrong doing because then you would demand tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollers in compensation and would have is confession to use against him in court.... I would advise any 3rd party company that considers using ffmpeg as part of their software to make sure they have at least a few lawyers on staff to check the every single detail of the licence is followed. nhaskins: they expect him to publicly open him self to liability by admitting he wilfully broke their licence, they expect him to pay tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for said violation, and then im sure they also expect him to pay him a % of any money his site makes from ad's and donations. Also they expect him to host on his servers source for ever version of ffmpeg hes used since he started making mediacoder. I can pretty much guarantee this wouldn't have been an issue if stan hadnt closed the source for mediacoder(due to nobody helping him develop it) FOSS/Linux zelots will attack and belittle anything thats not FOSS I have watched it for years, even have a few old friends who badmouth windows because its COSS and everything should be "free" I have lost alot of respect for some of the people behind FFMPEG after reading how they respond to Stan and others, being rude, standoffish and down right pricks dosnt help your cause, infact, in many peoples eyes, your attitude (the one seen from the likes of rbultje and diego, who have been very rude even tho stan clearly wanted to clear this up) Just because you deal with idiots every day dosnt mean you have the right to treat people baddly, If you where doing this for a real job, you would be fired for the way you talk to and treat people like stan, I know, I have seen people who make 6 figuars fired for how they treated people.... Mind you, i have an iq exceding 130 and the lgpl/gpl in places a greek to me...or is that Latin....) little note from a teacher I had many years ago, If you want people to respond to and interact to you in a positive way, you need to have a positive attitude when dealing with them. You would be surprised how often this is HARD to do but also how often it ends up working, I have had people everybody said where "impossible" to deal with endup becoming very easy to deal with when the proper attitude was applied to your dealings with them, little note: being a rude prick never works in your favor. msg10103 (view) Author: compn Date: 2010-04-12.03:13:44 what we want: ffmpeg sources (plus patches, plus any configuration/build scripts) for each ffmpeg/mplayer that mediacoder distributed as required by gpl/lgpl. what we want: remove anti-reverse engineering blocks from eula. but if you want to make things up, go ahead. just dont spam our bug tracker with it. msg11399 (view) Author: victorhooi Date: 2010-07-26.04:16:03 heya, I'm just going to chime in with my 2 cents. Firstly, I think you guys are doing an awesome job with FFMPEG kudos to you. However, with this whole exchange with MediaCoder/Stanley, as an objective neutral observer, you guys do realise you come across as being a bit...well... antagonistic? I don't know if there were earlier exchange between Stanley and you, but just from what we (the public) can see on this thread, you guys seem pretty hostile, and aggressive. It's obvious that English isn't his first language, and he repeatedly asked for clarifications. But it seems like it was pulling teeth - you could have just come out and said, "Oi, mate, make sure you put up the source code, and do this/that etc." But you kept on trying to score points, and say, no, you read the license, he says, no, please tell me, you say, go away and read it. It's like the whole RTFM thing - sure, user's should read them, but look, occasionally it doesn't hurt to get off your high-horse and just you know, tell them? And the repeated hammering of him, the belittling, the subtle insinuations and slurs, and the huge emphasis on him admitting fault - sorry, but it's like it's all about who's got the bigger gun, instead of actually trying to fix the issue. And as somebody else pointed out, any lawyer worth his salt would tell him he'd be an idiot to publicly admit fault on his website. Sure, if this was a nice, amicable community, and we were all friendly and looking out for each other, that would work - but I think it's fairly obvious this flamewar left that point a long time ago. I know, as coders, we often get accused of having a God/Messiah complex, or just being arrogant, annoying pricks - things like this don't help. The flamewars on the Gnome mailing lists were pretty bad, the whole Novell-Mono fiasco, all the Apple ranting (I personally hate Apple, ideologically, and I don't think they're any friend to the OSS movmenet (e.g. KHTML/WebKit fiasco) but some of the stuff that spouts out of "our" side is really embarrassing). I note this issue is still marked as opened. I checked out the website, I did see a link to source code, however, I didn't go in-depth. Can anybody list, in a nice concise list, what else he needs to still do to be compliant with you guys? Cheers, Victor msg11400 (view) Author: cehoyos Date: 2010-07-26.07:48:29 @victorhooi: Could you post the link to the source code you found? msg11867 (view) Author: AzureSky Date: 2010-09-05.21:52:09 well said victorhooi, well said. also, As I understand it software can be covered under more then once licence, but what compn is saying is he cant put anything in the licence for the mediacoder portion of the software(the parts thats seprate from ffmepg) to protect his hard work... this all comes off as alot of FSF hate for anything closed source... msg11868 (view) Author: reimar Date: 2010-09-06.06:34:01 On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:52:09PM +0000, AzureSky wrote: > to protect his hard work... So instead you tell us we shouldn't "protect" our hard work? Did it occur to you that that's rather impertinent? > this all comes off as alot of FSF hate for anything closed source... Microsoft, Real, ... all license codecs. But after getting their conditions you would probably have to realize that they must be hating closed source even more since surprisingly their conditions while different aren't any less strict in addition to asking for money... msg11872 (view) Author: cehoyos Date: 2010-09-06.09:23:27 In case this wasn't clear from my last post: I was unable to find actual source-code. msg11906 (view) Author: compn Date: 2010-09-09.18:30:30 > but what compn is saying is he cant put anything in the > licence for the mediacoder portion of the software the old eula didnt make distinctions between mediacoder and the gpl/lgpl software. thats why i asked for it to be changed. here is what needs to be done now: host copies of the source of all the ffmpeg versions previously found in mediacoder installs. download it from the ffmpeg builds site, and host it like mediacoderhq.com/ffmpeg/. then put a link to mediacoderhq.com/ffmpeg/ in the readme or help>about section of the program. also on the website somewhere would be good , like on http://www.mediacoderhq.com/pkglist.htm. let me know if there is a problem with doing it this way or if you have any questions. msg13000 (view) Author: brane Date: 2010-12-18.07:44:13 > here is what needs to be done now: > host copies of the source of all the ffmpeg versions previously found in > mediacoder installs. You cannot require anyone to host copies of the ffmpeg source code. GPL (whether v2 or v3) does not require that. What it requires is that the sources to the original plus any modifications be made available upon request. For example, see GPLv3, 6(b)(2): assuming the ffmpeg.exe bundled with MediaCoder is built from unmodified sources, it is perfectly OK to just provide a link to the ffmpeg download site in the MediaCoder documentation. IANAL etc. disclaimers ad nauseam.