[PATCH] faad2 version 2.5 support, second try
Problem: With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use --enable-libfaadbin when building ffmpeg, the compilation seems to complete fine, but but when you try to run it, it gives errors: (You can download the test mp4 from http://timepassindia.com/raj.mp4 ) ffmpeg -i raj.mp4 -ar 22050 -f flv -y test.flv FFmpeg version SVN-r10671, Copyright (c) 2000-2007 Fabrice Bellard, et al. configuration: --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libogg --enable-libvorbis --enable-libfaad --enable-libfaadbin --enable-libfaac --enable-gpl libavutil version: 49.5.0 libavcodec version: 51.44.0 libavformat version: 51.14.0 built on Oct 5 2007 23:37:18, gcc: 4.1.1 20070105 (Red Hat 4.1.1-52) [mpeg4aac @ 0x84b60d0]FAAD library: cannot resolve faacDecGetErrorMessage in libfaad.so.0! [mpeg4aac @ 0x84b60d0]FAAD library: cannot resolve faacDecGetErrorMessage in libfaad.so.0! ... [mpeg4aac @ 0x84b60d0]FAAD library: cannot resolve faacDecGetErrorMessage in libfaad.so.0! [mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2 @ 0x840aa74]Could not find codec parameters (Audio: mpeg4aac) Seems stream 0 codec frame rate differs from container frame rate: 1000.00 (1000/1) -> 15.00 (15/1) Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from 'raj.mp4': Duration: 00:00:09.5, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 808 kb/s Stream #0.0(und): Video: mpeg4, yuv420p, 320x240, 15.00 fps(r) Stream #0.1(und): Audio: mpeg4aac Output #0, flv, to 'test.flv': Stream #0.0(und): Video: flv, yuv420p, 320x240, q=2-31, 200 kb/s, 15.00 fps(c) Stream #0.1(und): Audio: libmp3lame, 22050 Hz, mono, 64 kb/s Stream mapping: Stream #0.0 -> #0.0 Stream #0.1 -> #0.1 [mpeg4aac @ 0x84b60d0]FAAD library: cannot resolve faacDecGetErrorMessage in libfaad.so.0! Error while opening codec for input stream #0.1 Solution: Thanks to several people on this devel list, especially Dominik who has been with me in the last thread, I come up with a new patch: --- libavcodec/libfaad.c.orig 2007-10-05 23:31:42.000000000 +0000 +++ libavcodec/libfaad.c 2007-10-07 00:55:44.000000000 +0000 @@ -217,9 +217,15 @@ libfaadname, dlerror()); return -1; } +#if defined(FAAD2_VERSION) && defined(NEAACDECAPI) +#define dfaac(a, b) \ + do { static const char* n = "NeAACDec" #a; \ + if ((s->faacDec ## a = b dlsym( s->handle, n )) == NULL) { err = n; break; } } while(0) +#else #define dfaac(a, b) \ do { static const char* n = "faacDec" #a; \ if ((s->faacDec ## a = b dlsym( s->handle, n )) == NULL) { err = n; break; } } while(0) +#endif for(;;) { #else /* !CONFIG_LIBFAADBIN */ #define dfaac(a, b) s->faacDec ## a = faacDec ## a
Hi On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Frank Liu wrote:
Problem:
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use --enable-libfaadbin when building ffmpeg, the compilation seems to complete fine, but but when you try to run it, it gives errors: [...] Solution:
Thanks to several people on this devel list, especially Dominik who has been with me in the last thread, I come up with a new patch:
ffmpeg is used by GPL applications and i would like to keep ffmpeg linkable with GPL applications this patch and all possible variations of it are rejected if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 04:44:20AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Frank Liu wrote:
Problem:
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use --enable-libfaadbin when building ffmpeg, the compilation seems to complete fine, but but when you try to run it, it gives errors: [...] Solution:
Thanks to several people on this devel list, especially Dominik who has been with me in the last thread, I come up with a new patch:
ffmpeg is used by GPL applications and i would like to keep ffmpeg linkable with GPL applications
this patch and all possible variations of it are rejected
if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder
Better yet: Get the AAC decoder from last year ready for inclusion in FFmpeg, it should be nearly complete. Diego
Hi Diego, Diego Biurrun wrote: [...]
if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder
Better yet: Get the AAC decoder from last year ready for inclusion in FFmpeg, it should be nearly complete. Just curious: does it work? What needs to be done?
I know I should go and download and test it; I am just asking if someone has updated information about that AAC decoder, before going and checking it by myself (I know, I am lazy ;-) Thanks, Luca
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:16:54PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
Diego Biurrun wrote: [...]
if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder
Better yet: Get the AAC decoder from last year ready for inclusion in FFmpeg, it should be nearly complete. Just curious: does it work? What needs to be done?
I know I should go and download and test it; I am just asking if someone has updated information about that AAC decoder, before going and checking it by myself (I know, I am lazy ;-)
AFAIK support for low complexity AAC (or whatever it was called) is complete except for some occasional sound glitches. HE-AAC (or whatever it was called) is unsupported. It really should not be much work to get this finished... Diego
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Frank Liu wrote:
Problem:
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use --enable-libfaadbin when building ffmpeg, the compilation seems to complete fine, but but when you try to run it, it gives errors:
[...]
Solution:
Thanks to several people on this devel list, especially Dominik who has been with me in the last thread, I come up with a new patch:
ffmpeg is used by GPL applications and i would like to keep ffmpeg linkable with GPL applications
this patch and all possible variations of it are rejected
if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder
[...]
Michael, I don't see how the above mentionned patch changes the GPL compatibility status of ffmpeg. Please can you explain what i'm missing? Thanks Vadim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel at mplayerhq.hu http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:12:11PM +0200, Vadim Lebedev wrote:
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Frank Liu wrote:
Problem:
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use --enable-libfaadbin when building ffmpeg, the compilation seems to complete fine, but but when you try to run it, it gives errors:
[...]
Solution:
Thanks to several people on this devel list, especially Dominik who has been with me in the last thread, I come up with a new patch:
ffmpeg is used by GPL applications and i would like to keep ffmpeg linkable with GPL applications
this patch and all possible variations of it are rejected
if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder
[...]
Michael,
I don't see how the above mentionned patch changes the GPL compatibility status of ffmpeg.
Please can you explain what i'm missing?
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:12:11PM +0200, Vadim Lebedev wrote:
Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:06:44PM -0700, Frank Liu wrote:
Problem:
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use --enable-libfaadbin when building ffmpeg, the compilation seems to complete fine, but but when you try to run it, it gives errors:
[...]
Solution:
Thanks to several people on this devel list, especially Dominik who has been with me in the last thread, I come up with a new patch:
ffmpeg is used by GPL applications and i would like to keep ffmpeg linkable with GPL applications
this patch and all possible variations of it are rejected
if you want support for more advanced AAC features in ffmpeg, please look at the AAC spec and write a free decoder
[...]
Michael,
I don't see how the above mentionned patch changes the GPL compatibility status of ffmpeg.
Please can you explain what i'm missing?
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
If only the only API differences from GPL versions are trivial renames, I can't see how dlopening a non-GPL version could be an issue. Maybe it is not legal to distribute core dumps from the resulting process image (and even this is doubtful), but that would hardly be a problem. -- M?ns Rullg?rd mans at mansr.com
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
Just to tell you know, if some people are interested, that FAAD 2.6 is out, and from the news annoucement: "Other news is the little change in the copyright header and the readme of FAAD2. Apparantly a lot of projects were troubled about the extra requirement that the old header asked for. The FSF looked at this and said that with some minor change the text can be seen as clarification of section 2c of the GPLv2. I advise all projects using FAAD2 to update to this new package (or CVS), I guess there's nothing to be worried about anymore." However, looking at the headers, I don't see exactly in what this is more GPL compatible than before, but a lot of people might know better than I do. Best Regards, -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf http://www.jbkempf.com/
On Friday, 12 October 2007 at 01:34, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
Just to tell you know, if some people are interested, that FAAD 2.6 is out, and from the news annoucement:
"Other news is the little change in the copyright header and the readme of FAAD2. Apparantly a lot of projects were troubled about the extra requirement that the old header asked for. The FSF looked at this and said that with some minor change the text can be seen as clarification of section 2c of the GPLv2. I advise all projects using FAAD2 to update to this new package (or CVS), I guess there's nothing to be worried about anymore."
However, looking at the headers, I don't see exactly in what this is more GPL compatible than before, but a lot of people might know better than I do.
Hm indeed there's a small change in the clause: --- README.2.5 2007-10-12 00:30:28.000000000 +0200 +++ README.2.6 2007-10-11 20:41:49.000000000 +0200 @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ ** ** Software using this code must display the following message visibly in or ** on each copy of the software: -** "FAAD2 AAC/HE-AAC/HE-AACv2/DRM decoder (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" +** "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" ** in, for example, the about-box or help/startup screen. ** ** Commercial non-GPL licensing of this software is possible. 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
2007/10/12, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org>:
On Friday, 12 October 2007 at 01:34, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
Just to tell you know, if some people are interested, that FAAD 2.6 is out, and from the news annoucement:
"Other news is the little change in the copyright header and the readme of FAAD2. Apparantly a lot of projects were troubled about the extra requirement that the old header asked for. The FSF looked at this and said that with some minor change the text can be seen as clarification of section 2c of the GPLv2. I advise all projects using FAAD2 to update to this new package (or CVS), I guess there's nothing to be worried about anymore."
However, looking at the headers, I don't see exactly in what this is more GPL compatible than before, but a lot of people might know better than I do.
Hm indeed there's a small change in the clause: --- README.2.5 2007-10-12 00:30:28.000000000 +0200 +++ README.2.6 2007-10-11 20:41:49.000000000 +0200 @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ ** ** Software using this code must display the following message visibly in or ** on each copy of the software: -** "FAAD2 AAC/HE-AAC/HE-AACv2/DRM decoder (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" +** "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" ** in, for example, the about-box or help/startup screen. ** ** Commercial non-GPL licensing of this software is possible.
That's improvement. However there is still something that troubles me. The GPL clauses talks with if's. IF your programs runs interactively , exception IF it doesn't normaly print such announcemnts. However the Nero "clarification" is much more imperative, it "MUST". I wouldn't jump on that horse yet. I'd like to hear from FSF that everything is ok first.
On Oct 12, 2007 11:52 AM, Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com> wrote:
2007/10/12, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org>:
On Friday, 12 October 2007 at 01:34, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
> With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
Just to tell you know, if some people are interested, that FAAD 2.6 is out, and from the news annoucement:
"Other news is the little change in the copyright header and the readme of FAAD2. Apparantly a lot of projects were troubled about the extra requirement that the old header asked for. The FSF looked at this and said that with some minor change the text can be seen as clarification of section 2c of the GPLv2. I advise all projects using FAAD2 to update to this new package (or CVS), I guess there's nothing to be worried about anymore."
However, looking at the headers, I don't see exactly in what this is more GPL compatible than before, but a lot of people might know better than I do.
Hm indeed there's a small change in the clause: --- README.2.5 2007-10-12 00:30:28.000000000 +0200 +++ README.2.6 2007-10-11 20:41:49.000000000 +0200 @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ ** ** Software using this code must display the following message visibly in or ** on each copy of the software: -** "FAAD2 AAC/HE-AAC/HE-AACv2/DRM decoder (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" +** "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" ** in, for example, the about-box or help/startup screen. ** ** Commercial non-GPL licensing of this software is possible.
That's improvement. However there is still something that troubles me. The GPL clauses talks with if's. IF your programs runs interactively , exception IF it doesn't normaly print such announcemnts. However the Nero "clarification" is much more imperative, it "MUST".
I wouldn't jump on that horse yet. I'd like to hear from FSF that everything is ok first.
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. I also happen to know that the person who is currently working of ffaac is well motivated and wont abandon it, because of this patch.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 06:39:57PM +0200, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007 11:52 AM, Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com> wrote:
2007/10/12, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik at rangers.eu.org>:
On Friday, 12 October 2007 at 01:34, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
>> With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
Just to tell you know, if some people are interested, that FAAD 2.6 is out, and from the news annoucement:
"Other news is the little change in the copyright header and the readme of FAAD2. Apparantly a lot of projects were troubled about the extra requirement that the old header asked for. The FSF looked at this and said that with some minor change the text can be seen as clarification of section 2c of the GPLv2. I advise all projects using FAAD2 to update to this new package (or CVS), I guess there's nothing to be worried about anymore."
However, looking at the headers, I don't see exactly in what this is more GPL compatible than before, but a lot of people might know better than I do.
Hm indeed there's a small change in the clause: --- README.2.5 2007-10-12 00:30:28.000000000 +0200 +++ README.2.6 2007-10-11 20:41:49.000000000 +0200 @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ ** ** Software using this code must display the following message visibly in or ** on each copy of the software: -** "FAAD2 AAC/HE-AAC/HE-AACv2/DRM decoder (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" +** "Code from FAAD2 is copyright (c) Nero AG, www.nero.com" ** in, for example, the about-box or help/startup screen. ** ** Commercial non-GPL licensing of this software is possible.
That's improvement. However there is still something that troubles me. The GPL clauses talks with if's. IF your programs runs interactively , exception IF it doesn't normaly print such announcemnts. However the Nero "clarification" is much more imperative, it "MUST".
I wouldn't jump on that horse yet. I'd like to hear from FSF that everything is ok first.
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. The statement above defines what appropriate is which is an additional restriction if the legal meaning of appropriate is "wider" than this. 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 And the whole sounds a lot like the original BSD license together with its problems.
I also happen to know that the person who is currently working of ffaac is well motivated and wont abandon it, because of this patch.
Let me ask, what do we gain from the patch? A native AAC decoder might be around the corner ... [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB If a bugfix only changes things apparently unrelated to the bug with no further explanation, that is a good sign that the bugfix is wrong.
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.
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?
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? 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
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
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
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 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 [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Frequently ignored awnser#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker, user questions for the command line tools ffmpeg, ffplay, ... as well as questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the ffmpeg-user mailinglist.
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
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:36:45PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: [...]
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.
iam not a lawyer but either A. we violate the GPL by not providing copyright statements for all the libs we use or B. asking for such a explicit statement is an additional restriction again IANAL thats just MHO
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.
that would be fine i guess [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. -- Socrates
On 10/11/07, Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb at videolan.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
With faad2 version 2.5 and current ffmpeg, if you use
faad2 is not GPL compatible any program (ffmpeg or otherwise) including faad2 can thus not be GPL compatible either
Just to tell you know, if some people are interested, that FAAD 2.6 is out, and from the news annoucement:
Indeed http://www.audiocoding.com/faad2.html says FAAD2 is GPL. and FAAC is LGPL http://www.audiocoding.com/faac.html Latest version faac 1.26 and faad2 2.6. Frank
participants (9)
-
diego＠biurrun.de -
dominik＠rangers.eu.org -
gfrankliu＠gmail.com -
ikalvachev＠gmail.com -
jb＠videolan.org -
lucabe72＠email.it -
mans＠mansr.com -
michaelni＠gmx.at -
vadim＠mbdsys.com