[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] faad2 version 2.5 support, second try

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Monday, 14 January 2008 at 12:27, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:07:29PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 January 2008 at 04:34, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:39:57PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Two months ago I heard that the text is changed and today I did
> > > > download libfaad 2.6.1 and checked it myselfs. (CVS says the change is
> > > > done at revision 1.10, Thu Nov 1 12:33:29 2007 UTC )
> > > > The text now says:
> > > > 
> > > > ** The "appropriate copyright message" mentioned in section 2c of the GPLv2
> > > > ** must read: "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com"
> > > > 
> > > > I think this text looks quite GPL complaint. At least I can't find
> > > > reason why it wouldn't be.
> > > > 
> > > > I was wondering if we can now reconsider the original patch from this thread.
> > > 
> > > Is there some statement from the FSF about this? If no id say we should wait.
> > 
> > Or we could ask.
> 
> you or diego could, i dont really care about faad, for me its a simple thing,
> they have wasted alot of time of many open source people with their idiotic
> license games. And iam not going to waste any more of mine

Well, other projects use FAAD2 as well, so while you might consider it a waste
of your time (and I'd agree, your time is better spent on coding FFmpeg), I think
clearing this issue will benefit all those other projects as well.

> > > The statement above defines what appropriate is which is an additional
> > > restriction if the legal meaning of appropriate is "wider" than this.
> > 
> > Wider than what?
> 
> wider than the license text of FAAD2
> 
> assume the law would say that a reference to a README is appropriate copyright
> statement for used libs then the text of the FAAD2 license is an additional
> restriction

We're not talking about your assumptions here. Is there a law thay says that
or isn't there? AFAIK there isn't, but my knowledge is admittedly limited.

> > > Also an appropriate copyright statement for ffmpeg is certainly not
> > > "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com", that might be
> > > part of it but its not alone on its own appropriate
> > 
> > Why do you say it is not appropriate? What would you consider appropriate?
> 
> 
> currently ffmpeg prints
> FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard, et al.
> 
> following would not be appropriate:
> FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com
> 
> but that is what the license requires if taken litterally IMHO/IANAL

Not in my opinion. IIUC all they want is to be credited as Nero AG, wherever the GPL
says you must put those credits.

> something like:
> FFmpeg version SVN-r11520, Copyright (c) 2000-2008 Fabrice Bellard, et al.
> Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com
> Code from xvid is ...
> Code from x264 is ...
> Code from lame is
> Code from zlib is
> ... libc 
> ...
> 
> would be a fairer variant but here the appropriate copyright string has many
> lines and thus is definitly not equal to
> "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" aka its not wat they
> ask for if taken litterally IMHO

I think you're reading too much into it. I suggest you re-read the GPL and
its requirements on copyright notices. Hint: non-interactive software doesn't
have to print them.

Regards,
R.

-- 
MPlayer developer and RPMs maintainer: http://mplayerhq.hu http://rpm.livna.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
	-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan