[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] FOSS shame
Carl Eugen Hoyos
Tue Nov 24 00:31:27 CET 2009
Michael Niedermayer <michaelni <at> gmx.at> writes:
> > > heres my current try:
> > > --- shame (revision 411)
> > > +++ shame (working copy)
> > > @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
> > > This is a list of projects or companies violating FFmpeg's license. The
> > > is part of an effort to get them to comply with the licensing terms by
> > > them in public.
> > > +We have consciously chosen not to include <i>not for profit free
software projects</i> as we
> > > +belive that thouse who give their work to the world for free should not
> > > +on such lists.
The reason that I am against this is not that I want to put any open-source
project on the list, but that
1) I am convinced that it is very difficult to define "not for profit free
2) What if a project that originally was not on shame decides to put some ads on
its homepage? Would that mean the license violation depends on things totally
Note that the only thing - afaik - the only known open-source violator did so
far was to remove the information about the violation from its forum (sorry if
this turns out to be wrong, but I originally read the forum entry and could not
find it again after some searching).
> > I don't like this. Everybody should respect licenses. There is no
> > reason to exclude free sw projects if they turn out to be stubborn
> > and unwilling to fix issues they may have.
That is my opinion as well.
> I dont complain to people because i have some legal basis to do it.
> For me there first needs to
> be something done by them that i consider seriously wrong.
> Taking someone elses hard work and pretending its ones own is seriously
> Also taking some one elses hard work and selling it for a profit without
> giving that person any share at all is also something i feel isnt right.
> And last, obviously improving someones FOSS work and not giving these
> improvents to the worlds public under FOSS again is also something i
> consider wrong.
> OTOH, not including the unchanged source of ffmpeg, including a pathset
> including the LGPL license text, including the wrong LGPL version, just saying
> under LGPL,
> or linking to some non free codecs alone
Are you sure?
(Nearly) all of the current offenders would be able to fix their issues if we
all agree about this. I thought we would at least require them to dynamically
load such libraries at least.
> are just not something
> that i mind anyone doing. But if someone is doing something that i
> consider seriously wrong then i surely will use all these little things to
> fight them.
> I dont like the kind of "zero tolerance" thinking where one puts everyone
> on the shame list because they violate the text without violating the
> spirit of the text.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel