[FFmpeg-devel] GOM Player on the Blacklisted Projects

[Francois Oligny-Lemieux]

Hi,

I have one question that you can find inline:

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:43PM +0900, ??? Ethan Park wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Diego Biurrun [mailto:diego at biurrun.de]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 3:57 AM
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:53:33AM +0900, ??? Ethan Park wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Diego Biurrun [mailto:diego at biurrun.de]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:12 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > I would appreciate avoiding top-posting in email communication,
> > > > > thank you in advance.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:34:36PM +0900, ??? Ethan Park wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My name is Ethan Park, and I am the product manager for GOM
> Player.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am Diego Biurrun, I am the MPlayer webmaster and also happen to
> > > > > handle its legal affairs.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed that our product is on the Blacklisted Projects list
> on
> > > > > > your website (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/projects.html).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have always mentioned FFmpeg with a link to the modified
> source
> > > > > > code under Copyright Info on our Korean version of GOM Player
> > > > > > (which is the most important version for us as it has more than
> > > > > > 10x users than the English version), however we have failed to
> do
> > > > > > so on our English version up until version 2.1.8. This wasn't
> > > > > > intentional, but rather a lack of our translation effort. We do
> > > > > > sincerely apologize for violating your terms. However, we have
> not
> > > > > > received your "requests to mark [the] originals" as mentioned on
> > > > > > your website, unfortunately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Our most up to date GOM Player (Version 2.1.9.3752) does give
> > > > > > credit to FFmpeg, includes a copy of LGPL, and provides a link
> to
> > > > > > the URL where you can obtain the modified source code of FFmpeg
> > > > > > for free of charge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope you will consider removing our product from your
> blacklist.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are investigating the issue, you shall hear from us soon.
> > > >
> > > > Diego-
> > > > Can you please give us an update on this issue?
> > >
> > > We have not yet investigated this in detail, but I notice the
> following
> > > issues:
> > >
> > > - The source code tarball contains no license file.
> > > - It's completely unclear which version of FFmpeg your code is based
> on
> > >   and what changes you made.
> > >
> > > - There are a bunch of files with incompatible licenses, namely
> > >
> > > skl_dct.h
> > > skl_dct.c
> > > i386/skl_dct_sse.asm
> > > i386/skl_dct_sse2.asm
> > > i386/skl_nasm.h
> > >
> > > /********************************************************
> > >  * Some code. Copyright (C) 2003 by Pascal Massimino.   *
> > >  * All Rights Reserved.      (http://skal.planet-d.net) *
> > >  * For Educational/Academic use ONLY. See 'LICENSE.TXT'.*
> > > ********************************************************/
> > >
> > > You seem to be using these illegally.  There is no LICENSE.TXT file
> > > included in the zip file you provide.
> > >
> > > Then there are these two files:
> > >
> > > i386/skl_fdct_mmx.asm
> > > i386/skl_fdct_sse2.asm
> > >
> > > These files are licensed under the GPL, not the LGPL.  You ship the
> binary
> > > together with the LGPL license, but by using these two files all of
> the
> > > binary is covered by the GPL, not the LGPL.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, this does not appear to be the source code for the
> complete
> > > application.
> >
> > I forwarded your email to our development team, and they made the
> following changes.
> >
> > Source files deleted:
> >       skl_dct.h
> >       skl_dct.c
> >       i386/skl_dct_sse.asm
> >       i386/skl_dct_sse2.asm
> >       i386/skl_nasm.h
> >       i386/skl_fdct_mmx.asm
> >       i386/skl_fdct_sse2.asm
>
> This is of course insufficient.  You used and distributed these files,
> you have to abide by the license and respect Pascal's copyright.
>
> > Changes made:
> >       Original source:
> >               libavcodec version 51.40.4
> >               libavutil version 49.4.0
>
> That's a good start, but not very precise.  A sufficiently precise
> answer would be the Subversion revision number you based your work on.
>
> >       Changes:
> >               libavcodec ported to win32 dll using MinGW
>
> That's also a good start, but not precise enough.  A sufficiently
> precise answer would be a diff file with your changes.


Are you sure he's required to go that precise. My understanding is of
GPL/LGPL is that he's just required to show the modification date on the
specific file(s) modified. To contribute back to the community with the
diffed changes is optional and often on ffmpeg-devl mailing list when
someone send its diff saying it's to comply with GPL, one of you respond
that he's out in the field and that the license never compels him to do
that.

Let me know cause these matters interest me.


> > Our next release will be shipped with the changes made today, and the
> > source code will be uploaded to our server shortly.
>
> Let us know when you do this.
>
> Diego
>
>

Francois