[Ffmpeg-devel-irc] ffmpeg-devel.log.20181203

[burek]

[00:37:27 CET] <cone-562> ffmpeg 03Mark Thompson 07master:2f6b1806ce2b: configure: Avoid use of nonstandard features of sed
[01:07:57 CET] <cone-562> ffmpeg 03Mark Thompson 07master:21608bc30303: hwcontext_opencl: Use correct function to enumerate devices
[01:07:58 CET] <cone-562> ffmpeg 03Ruiling Song 07master:416dc9a5e817: lavf: add transpose_opencl filter
[06:40:57 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03Karthick J 07master:0a80b39780c2: avformat/dashenc: Added proper logging when io_open fails for write
[06:40:57 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03Andrey Semashev 07master:e444b3b184f3: lavf/dashenc: Write media trailers when DASH trailer is written.
[06:40:57 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03Andrey Semashev 07master:a68a97558446: lavf/dashenc: Use avpriv_io_delete to delete files.
[06:59:53 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03Karthick J 07master:4bbb6d1ae9e6: Revert "lavf/dashenc: Write media trailers when DASH trailer is written."
[07:43:36 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03hwrenx 07master:701cbbb58c76: libdavs2: update api version and enable avx option
[07:43:37 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03hwrenx 07master:42597d6fa03c: lavc/libdavs2: output delayed frames
[07:43:38 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03hwrenx 07master:8ef0fdaafcf0: lavc/libdavs2: fix function return value error
[09:41:30 CET] <j-b> 'morning
[10:34:57 CET] <cone-739> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:8440835dbe93: avfilter/vf_overlay: fix filtering with negative y
[10:38:28 CET] <CoreX> morning babe
[15:32:36 CET] <Zeranoe> So NewTek is providing a non-free copy of FFmpeg in their Windows SDK: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Zeranoe/8e088a5cab1b33a9a94336f8a23b6be9/raw/7de2344855d84f8b139572db3678a815dbbc7606/gistfile1.txt
[15:44:41 CET] <kierank> Zeranoe: open a ticket
[15:45:43 CET] <kierank> they had a copied idct or dct from xvid before
[16:13:57 CET] <kierank> funny how they'll try to sue you if you implement NDI yourself
[16:14:03 CET] <kierank> but they copy open source code all the time
[16:15:30 CET] <Zeranoe> What ever happens with these violations? Does FFmpeg have a legal team I'm not aware of?
[17:17:05 CET] <cone-276> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:42d5b59bdcf8: configure: check if dlfcn.h is present for ladspa and frei0r, if not abort early
[17:25:23 CET] <durandal_1707> Carl is troll we need!
[17:33:47 CET] <cone-276> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:3d8d8c719971: avcodec/r210: use correct pixel format
[17:33:53 CET] <Zeranoe> durandal_1707: Context?
[17:34:33 CET] <durandal_1707> no context needed
[17:35:20 CET] <Zeranoe> Fair enough
[19:11:18 CET] <cone-276> ffmpeg 03Carl Eugen Hoyos 07master:be17a82f3cfb: lavc: Bump version for r210 pix_fmt change.
[19:30:16 CET] <kierank> j-b: might need you in that thread
[19:37:34 CET] <BtbN> Am I missing something in this case? Sure, it's not nice, but out of all the (L)GPL violators, this seems like one of the smaller ones, specially as they have voiced intent to fix it.
[19:37:48 CET] <kierank> he hasn't at all
[19:37:53 CET] <kierank> he wants people to use his blob with ffmpeg
[19:38:07 CET] <kierank> and sues people who independently implement it
[19:38:09 CET] <JEEB> and the srt people at least had the decency to open source it
[19:38:21 CET] <JEEB> NDI is lol black box
[19:39:14 CET] <JEEB> I wonder if we need a rule about not OSI open source nonfree components
[19:39:32 CET] <JEEB> as in, if it's not part of the OS and not open source...
[19:46:32 CET] <cone-276> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:5487560acfc4: avcodec/dnxhddec: use init_get_bits8()
[19:56:49 CET] <gnafu> Boy, they could have a career with the Trump administration the way they lie through their teeth.
[19:56:52 CET] <gnafu> "I didn
[19:56:58 CET] <gnafu> "I didn't see that post."
[19:57:06 CET] <gnafu> [Narrator] "He had."
[19:57:23 CET] <gnafu> *cue Arrested Development scene change jingle*
[19:57:37 CET] <JEEB> lol
[20:15:54 CET] <j-b> kierank: yes, sir?
[20:16:02 CET] <kierank> j-b: see NewTek ticket
[20:16:40 CET] <j-b> kierank: hmm, I would love to start suing people for FFmpeg violations
[20:34:53 CET] <durandal_1707> j-b: you cant sue people, lawyers need millions...
[21:17:24 CET] <j-b> durandal_1707: BS.
[21:17:32 CET] <j-b> durandal_1707: I sued many VLC GPL violators
[22:11:50 CET] <JEEB> any comments on https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/11258/ and https://patchwork.ffmpeg.org/patch/11257/
[22:24:46 CET] <Fenrirthviti> kierank: Did you have further details on Cross suing someone? Just curious what happened there.
[22:26:31 CET] <Fenrirthviti> Rather, making legal threats to be specific.
[22:31:01 CET] <kierank> Someone in the OSS community reverse engineered NDI to make an OSS implementation as well as finding many security holes
[22:31:07 CET] <kierank> They then got a legal threat
[22:32:29 CET] <Fenrirthviti> I see. Nothing public about it, I assume?
[22:35:44 CET] <j-b> nope
[22:35:50 CET] <j-b> but we could make that public.
[22:37:44 CET] <gnafu> I hadn
[22:37:55 CET] <gnafu> 't heard of NDI before today, but I'll be sure to avoid it.
[22:38:25 CET] <JEEB> wat
[22:38:33 CET] <JEEB> carl might want to be a bit more verbose
[22:39:11 CET] <iive> what is NDI ?
[22:39:15 CET] <BtbN> I also wonder how this would work if they'd have a commercial x264 license, allowing them to do it. Would they have to patch ffmpeg to not display the non-free message? Cause if not for x264, their build could be LGPL and not non-free.
[22:39:37 CET] <j-b> What a bunch of BS, they use --enable-nonfree
[22:39:44 CET] <iive> don't forget, x264 is dual license
[22:40:03 CET] <gnafu> iive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Device_Interface
[22:40:46 CET] <JEEB> BtbN: if the libx264 wrapper is LGPL then maybe (although j-b et al probably have a better view on this stuff) - but there was no hints of that. just enable-gpl and enable-nonfree :P
[22:41:21 CET] <BtbN> So only the thin wrapper code would be the issue? wow
[22:41:38 CET] <JEEB> I don't know
[22:41:56 CET] <JEEB> I think someone here did poink me that LGPL + blob might not be kosher to begin with
[22:42:09 CET] <JEEB> as opposed to the "fully LGPL thing being linekd in a blob"
[22:42:25 CET] <BtbN> configure allows it at least
[22:42:29 CET] <JEEB> because in one case you can get the full source of the open source thing, but having a blob means you have nothing OSS
[22:42:38 CET] <JEEB> (within that)
[22:42:42 CET] <BtbN> LGPL only requires that you are able to reproduce the build
[22:42:51 CET] <BtbN> so you can't statically link, unless you provide your object files
[22:42:55 CET] <JEEB> yea, and with the other way it's clear
[22:43:17 CET] <j-b> BtbN: if they had, and if the wrapper was LGPL, maybe.
[22:43:44 CET] <j-b> BtbN: but I don't think so, since the ndi plugin is not LGPL compatible.
[22:44:47 CET] <JEEB> LGPL tends to be much more murky in the way that NDI etc are utilizing it. and j-b f.ex. seems to also have thoughts about that that it might not be kosher at all.
[22:45:14 CET] <j-b> JEEB: LGPL is not murky. People want it murky to suit their needs.
[22:47:01 CET] <j-b> JEEB: BtbN: do they have a x264 license?
[22:47:13 CET] <JEEB> hell if I know. I think BtbN was mostly playing with the idea
[22:47:15 CET] <BtbN> You'll have to ask them. I'd guess not.
[22:47:26 CET] <BtbN> But that was more in a general sense.
[22:50:56 CET] <j-b> JEEB: I do not understand cehoyos answer.
[22:51:41 CET] <JEEB> j-b: yea, he was /really/ terse
[22:51:48 CET] <JEEB> I would really love it if he was more verbose
[22:59:30 CET] <haasn> oh boy
[22:59:42 CET] <haasn> I want more info on them trolling OS projects
[23:01:13 CET] <j-b> However, if they use x264 without license, I will sue.
[23:01:15 CET] <j-b> directly.
[23:01:30 CET] <j-b> I really hope for them that they do.
[23:02:05 CET] <j-b> This is fun... (not)
[23:02:17 CET] <Zeranoe> j-b: Sorry...
[23:02:26 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: why are you sorry?
[23:03:06 CET] <Zeranoe> j-b: I reported it
[23:03:29 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: and?
[23:03:36 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: this is great.
[23:03:53 CET] <haasn> what country is this copyright violation taking place in?
[23:04:32 CET] <j-b> Newtek is making dozen of millions of your work.
[23:04:33 CET] <haasn> divided states of capitalism?
[23:04:44 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: you should report more, not less.
[23:05:00 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: you are doing a great job, and they just suck it up from you.
[23:05:07 CET] <j-b> and give nothing back.
[23:05:42 CET] <atomnuker> were newtek the ones with the really small ibc booth 2 years ago? hard to imagine making millions
[23:05:52 CET] <atomnuker> then again if all you do is take other people's work...
[23:05:55 CET] <haasn> say you'll believe their genuineness of their apology if they took all of the extra money they earned by enabling x264 in their builds and donated it off to x264
[23:06:10 CET] <j-b> atomnuker: nope
[23:06:18 CET] <j-b> atomnuker: they are the ones who had this HUGE booth.
[23:06:56 CET] <j-b> atomnuker: https://www.newtek.com/ just look at the footer. This is not a small company
[23:07:39 CET] <j-b> They have a branding policy, dozen of trademarks, https://www.newtek.com/trademarks/, they are present on all social networks and active. they have dozen of lines of products.
[23:10:25 CET] <Zeranoe> j-b: I took your "not fun" comment too literally I guess.
[23:10:38 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: oops, sorry.
[23:10:47 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: please report more people
[23:10:58 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: I forget IRC is not the best mean to convey the tone.
[23:11:16 CET] <j-b> https://www.owler.com/company/newtek estimated number of employees 309, revenue $39M
[23:11:19 CET] <j-b> yeah, small company
[23:12:09 CET] <Zeranoe> I think all that matters is that they have a legal dept. Small, med, large, if you have legal you lost your excuse.
[23:13:12 CET] <atomnuker> ah well, all I remember them for was a crappy usb 2 asi interface card and a usb 3 sdi one
[23:13:13 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: they have one, because they threatened to sue several open source develoeprs.
[23:13:28 CET] <j-b> atomnuker: linsys?
[23:14:53 CET] <kierank> atomnuker: you are confused with dektec
[23:17:36 CET] <kierank> Bellard used to work at dektec
[23:17:53 CET] <j-b> oh, yes. dektec, that one is small.
[23:18:27 CET] <j-b> JEEB: wtf.
[23:19:41 CET] <JEEB> WAT
[23:20:37 CET] <j-b> GPL is a contract.
[23:22:27 CET] <JEEB> agreed
[23:22:55 CET] <durandal_1707> relicense FFmpeg to Public Domain
[23:23:05 CET] <j-b> durandal_1707: that could be a good idea.
[23:23:25 CET] <Zeranoe> durandal_1707: Many already treat it as much.
[23:23:39 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: that is not normal.
[23:23:55 CET] <j-b> JEEB: for example, the way they redistribute the VLC plugin is quite conforming to our license.
[23:24:09 CET] <Zeranoe> The more helpful the OSS, the less people care about the license IMO
[23:24:11 CET] <j-b> they ship only their plugin, based on the LGPL-only libvlccore.
[23:24:27 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: possible.
[23:25:09 CET] <JEEB> yes, if it's just a module that's based on an LGPL lib
[23:25:15 CET] <JEEB> then there's nothing special
[23:25:48 CET] <BtbN> They didn't link to non-free ffmpeg from their stuff or anything. It's a pre-built ffmpeg.exe with support for their library enabled. Including full insturctions on how to do the same build yourself. So imo the violation is clearly there, but there all the various other violations are of way worse nature.
[23:26:27 CET] <BtbN> They can and from the reads of it will just remove those binaries, and no other functionality will be impacted.
[23:28:39 CET] <j-b> BtbN: it is a clear violation, from a big company from the sector, that is very agressive against open source developers
[23:29:26 CET] <JEEB> these things really don't happen in a vacuum. you can clearly see that effort was put into sticking libx264 there. thus there was a clear reason to think that they wanted to make the thing more useful to potential users ("sell" it better - even in the non-monetary sense). which is all good, the problem is when your stuff is not compatible with being distributed like that. of your volition.
[23:29:32 CET] <JEEB> they made the problem for themselves
[23:29:33 CET] <BtbN> Is there anywhere I can read up on that case? So far I only heard their side of the story.
[23:29:45 CET] <JEEB> yet they want their cake, and eat it too
[23:30:55 CET] <BradleyS> public domain is defined by copyright law and such laws are becoming more ridiculous every year and trade agreement
[23:31:14 CET] <BradleyS> not that anyone was serious, just saying
[23:31:35 CET] <j-b> CC-0 or WTFPL or something, of course.
[23:31:54 CET] <BradleyS> sure
[23:32:08 CET] <BradleyS> anything well-defined is better than saying "whatever copyright law defines as public domain"
[23:32:15 CET] <BradleyS> because that can change
[23:32:32 CET] <BradleyS> will someone kindly paste the link to the ticket in discussion
[23:34:02 CET] <j-b> of course, the public domain does not exist.
[23:35:42 CET] <j-b> Not doing the difference between a server and a USB camera is kind of weird, tbh.
[23:36:48 CET] <j-b> BradleyS: I think in France, there is no such definition at all, because you cannot give all your rights.
[23:37:16 CET] <j-b> Zeranoe: can you share the binary, please?
[23:37:37 CET] <cone-600> ffmpeg 03Paul B Mahol 07master:060ea5261df5: avcodec/r210dec: fix r10x decoding
[23:40:44 CET] <BradleyS> ah
[23:57:47 CET] <j-b> JEEB: you got my email?
[23:58:07 CET] <JEEB> ye
[00:00:00 CET] --- Tue Dec  4 2018