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

Diego Biurrun diego
Sun Feb 3 18:18:15 CET 2008


On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 02:15:56PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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.

I mostly agree with what Rich said.  I never said it was a particularly
good idea, but I'm sure it would work well as a publicity stunt.

Diego




More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list