[FFmpeg-devel] GOM Player on the Blacklisted Projects

[Diego Biurrun]

Sorry, I thought I had sent this mail off earlier, but apparently I
hadn't...

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:48:01AM +0900, ??? Ethan Park wrote:
> > From: Diego Biurrun [mailto:diego at biurrun.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:07 PM
> > 
> > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Revision numbers and diff files were added on our website at http://gomdevel.gomtv.com
> Please let us know if we are violating any terms for (L)GPL video projects. 

You are still in violation of licensing terms.

When I first downloaded the diff file on 2008-03-27, it was corrupted.
This seems to have been fixed now.

The diff file you have for download is not created in a way that makes
it useful.  It is very cumbersome to handle because it covers all the
metadata of the Subversion revision control system and all files that
were removed instead of changed.  Tell your engineers that the command
'svn diff' is able to produce the correct output without all this hassle.

The revision numbers you state on the web page are wrong.  You are based
on a much older version of FFmpeg.  Note that above you said

  Original source:
    libavcodec version 51.40.4
    libavutil version 49.4.0

and now the web page states

  Original source :
    libavcodec : version 51.40.0 Revision 9286
    libavutil : version 51.40.0 Revision 9286

Naturally, both statements cannot be correct at the same time.  I looked
quickly at the changes the diff file contains and you are clearly not
based on revision 9286, but on a much earlier version.

So to answer your question: You are still not in compliance with FFmpeg
licensing terms.  Fix the issues I pointed out above and we can continue
talking.

best regards

Diego Biurrun
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080331/bb3e024d/attachment.pgp>