[FFmpeg-devel] GOM Player on the Blacklisted Projects

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:36:12AM -0400, Francois Oligny-Lemieux wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:59:00PM -0400, Francois Oligny-Lemieux wrote:
> > >
> > > I have good news!
> >
> > I have good news as well: I was perfectly aware of all these issues.
> 
> 
> So do you agree that asking for diff is not sufficient for to meet any GPL /
> LGPL requirement? 

This sentance makes no sense at all, go away and learn english PLEASE!
1. If providing a diff satisfies any requirement of the *GPL, is a question
   for which you should consult a lawyer not a programmer and not the FSF.
2. A diff is easier for us, as well as for the "other side" than having
   modification dates and names in every single file.
3. Providing no modification trace at all neither
   diff/(modification dates+names)/git nor oterwise is a breach of the LGPL
   that is one of the things we complained about and what the FSF told you.
4. I(We?) consider diff(s) + source svn + revission to be sufficient to
   fullfill 2b.
5. The FSF considers correct names+dates of any change in each
   file to be sufficient to fullfill 2b
6. The FSF has no ownership in ffmpeg and are not in a position to
   demand anything from anyone. We though do.
7. I(We?) have no interrest in enforcing the FSF interpretation of the *GPL
   This would not be in anyones interrest short of the FSFs.


> If you ask for it, it should be advertised as to satisfy
> "ffmpeg team" in general instead of FFMpeg licensing terms (which are
> GPL/LGPL).

No, diegos mails were perfectly clear.


> 
> 
> However:
> >
> > - The GOM people were never in compliance with any interpretation of the
> >  LGPL.
> > - You can always *ask* for whatever you want and interpret compliance as
> >  a sign of goodwill.
> > - The GPL v2 / LGPL 2.1 does not feature a clause about restoration of
> >  distribution rights.  Once you break the license, those rights are
> >  permanently lost.  The only way to get them back is to petition the
> >  copyright holder(s), i.e. us.  We can ask anything in return for this
> >  and are under no obligation to restore the rights at all.
> >
> > <https://lists.mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel>
> >
> 
> Just to state the problem (so everyone is aware of it): If someone takes the
> GOM's modified ffmpeg library, incorporate it in their project and modify
> it, there will be no indications that the files ever came from GOM and it
> will break the lineage that LGPL 2.a tries to achieve. The guy will modify
> two files (for example) and put notices of modifications on the top of those
> two files, but then he will appear to be in breach of LGPL 2.a because there
> are another dozen files modified by GOM not carrying any notice of
> modifications and you guys will have to go a second time in the
> (blacklist/legal) process with this new guy.

You really have a problem with your understanding, GOM is currently not
compliant to the LGPL AFAIK. As such if you take their code and redistribute
with or without modifications (no matter what kind of) you are breaking
copyright laws because you cannot have a LGPL license which GOM did not have
in the first place.

If GOM where compliant to the LGPL you could of course take their
source and modify and redistribute it within the LGPL rules.
Assuming GOM was compliant, either you stay compliant
by providing a modification trace or you loose this information/
not add new notes as needed.
You could for example provide a diff together with goms diff(s)+svn rev. You
could also analyze the diff(s) from gom and convert that to dates + names
and add your name + date of modification. Also you could just use a revission
control system like git or mercurial to keep track of all changes.
What you cannot do is take a file from gom and remove the modification
information without providing the information in some other form.

Note: Iam not a lawyer above is just my uneducated oppinion!

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

If you really think that XML is the answer, then you definitly missunderstood
the question -- Attila Kinali
-------------- 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/20080411/336db791/attachment.pgp>