[FFmpeg-devel] Searching for a ffmpeg BCLO (bastard chief legal officer)

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 06:08:03PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:56:47PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:24:01PM -0800, Mike Melanson wrote:
> > > Compn wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:01:52 +0100, Gabriel Bouvigne wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> Related:
> > > >>
> > > >> In the case of Lame, if a quick and diplomatic contact doesn't work,
> > > >> we noticed that a mention of the company and product name on our
> > > >> website's "Wall of Shame" is quite efficient.
> > > >> (It's so efficient that it's currently empty)
> > > > 
> > > > mplayers' list of shame has companies on there for months (some even
> > > > years). this is not a deterrent or effective way to defeat them.
> > > > http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/projects.html
> > > > 
> > > > but if you wish to try, ffmpeg homepage is in svn, just checkout a copy
> > > > and send a patch.
> > > > http://svn.mplayerhq.hu/ffmpeg.org/trunk/
> > > 
> > > Here's a crazy idea: Do you think it would get their attention to post
> > > downloadable copies of their disassembled binaries in order to
> > > flagrantly violate their so-called EULAs (which explicitly prohibit
> > > disassembly)?
> > > 
> > > Probably not a big deal. But I have the webspace for it. :)
> > 
> > I have had more or less the same idea.  It could be quite effective for
> > all those shareware infringers.  Buy a copy of their program, then put
> > it up for download along with the license key...
> 
> I wouldnt do this.
> Because there is frankly nothing that gives you the legal right to. IMHO/IANAL
> They either fullfill the LGPL in which case you cannot redistribute their
> non LGPL part of the code. Or they dont fullfill the LGPL / dont accept the
> license, in which case you violate their copyright as well.
> 
> So in the end you would very significantly weaken your position in court.
> As your argument of copyright infrigment could then be countered by a similar
> argument against you.

This is true, but the only way the count of copyright infringement
against them could be nullified is by them agreeing to drop the
accusation against you (since they derived work MUST be GPL'd).

I still agree this is probably not a good approach.

Rich