Quote:

Unfortunately, that's what copyright is all about. It's not GPL's fault if it's "sketchy". GPL grants you more right than you would be entitled to by default, to do that it has to deal with the "sketchy" parts of copyright laws, but that's life.

To the best of my knowledge, the GPL doesn't define the terms it uses, or at least assumes some knowledge about computer terms that may or may not be UNIX in nature.. It sees a UNIX world only where linking is done at compile time or via ld.so. A precise definition of terms would be very welcome, it would certainly make things a lot clearer.

Quote:

The FAQ explains the point of view of the GPL authors, which is all that matters.

Not necessarily. A license is made between two parties, and both parties have their own view of what it says. The FAQ represents the FSF's view, which might be different that the other parties view. The FAQ cannot really be used to clean up debated cases, only a court could do that.

Quote:

And you know GPL has been tested in court already now, don't you?

I don't think this is relevant. I don't know what case you are referring to, but most likely it was company A vs. FSF on a specific GPL violation, and if the court decided in favour of FSF, this is only of relevance to this specific case. You can draw your conclusions, for sure, but only a court could rule on *any* supposed GPL violation.

I don't think that Law has anything to do with logic

Quote:

So, what is your point? Since the license itself is sketchy (but that's just your opinion, which I don't share), you are free to do whatever you want?

I think his point is what I said above: The FAQ is not part of the license text, and hence it only represents the view of one party, not both. You can use it as a starting point to find out what the FSF thinks about this and that aspect, and it will surely show you where you need to expect trouble, but it is not legally binding because it is not referenced in the GPL text itself (unless I am mistaken). Therefore it cannot be used as a proof - it can only be used as a hint.

Again, only a court could do a final ruling.

Quote:

Your problem, honestly.

Not really. IIRC the GPL FAQ states that piping does not cause your program to become GPL (i.e. you open a pipe to a GPL'ed program). It makes me wonder why this isn't a derivate work then, because it essentially has the same result only with a different mechanism. If the mechanism is cruical, however, the question remains whether amiga shared libraries are "linked" to a program or not. The fact that people *are* discussing that point IMO shows that it is a bit too vague in that respect.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

And I know some peoples that asked for Hyperion's Q2 source (matching current binary and in compileable form) and didn't get it.

You should have resisted, because this is plain and simply wrong. Everybody that wanted the source code that was in posession of a binary actually got it.

Nothing in the GPL requires me to send you a binary as well. In fact, in order to ask for the source code you must be in possession of a binary in the first place.

So please stop spreading lies.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

You're mistaken. Only a judge can tell you that, lawyers have no power to emit final judgements about the legality of anything.

True.

Quote:

So you think it's actually a bad thing to first inform the author of the sw which you think is in violation? I'd have thought that was actually a nice gesture... go figure!

Not at all. It's actually a good idea, to inform the author first. But what actually happened I think was that the author AND the public where informed before the FSF ever got to hear about it.

I am amazed about your suggestive style of writing. Go figure.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

Who's "good one"?

Huh?

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

So, how should he have worded the sentence, in your opinion?

???

I am not a linguist, nor did I say it was wrong to write what he wrote. I just contradicted Alkis' statement that there was no threat in the mail that Piru send. Where did I say I would have worded it differently?

(edit: Thread is an independend unit of executiion, Threat is the right word)

Last edited by Rogue on 16-Aug-2005 at 10:11 AM.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

You should have resisted, because this is plain and simply wrong. Everybody that wanted the source code that was in posession of a binary actually got it. Nothing in the GPL requires me to send you a binary as well. In fact, in order to ask for the source code you must be in possession of a binary in the first place. So please stop spreading lies.

Well, I heard some other things about it but it's Off-Topic. Just like mentioning ixemul.library was Off-Topic.

[Edit - typo]

Last edited by marcik on 16-Aug-2005 at 10:18 AM.

Quote:

To the best of my knowledge, the GPL doesn't define the terms it uses,

Taken verbatim from the GPL:

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law

It doesn't need to define "derivative work" because it is already defined by copyright law. If you don't know what a "derivative work" is, read the copyright law. I hope you don't think a license should bring with it the whole shebang of copyright law!

Quote:

or at least assumes some knowledge about computer terms that may or may not be UNIX in nature.. It sees a UNIX world only where linking is done at compile time or via ld.so. A precise definition of terms would be very welcome, it would certainly make things a lot clearer.

You're mistaken, in no place in the license is mentioned linking (except when mentioning LGPL, in its last 2 rows), unix or any other similar thing. You're referring to the FAQ.

Quote:

Not necessarily. A license is made between two parties, and both parties have their own view of what it says. The FAQ represents the FSF's view, which might be different that the other parties view. The FAQ cannot really be used to clean up debated cases, only a court could do that.

As you say, and as I've already said, the FAQ tells you the point of view of FSF and of whoever choses the GPL as the license of his/her sw. The FAQ is, hence, all that you need in order to know under which conditions you can use GPL'd sw in the opinion of the people who gave you the SW, which again is all you need to know in order to avoid being brought to court.

As said - but I don't get why I need to repeat myself - feel free to use GPL sw under terms that are incompatible with the ones explained in the FAQ, but then be ready to fight.

Quote:

don't think this is relevant. I don't know what case you are referring to, but most likely it was company A vs. FSF on a specific GPL violation, and if the court decided in favour of FSF, this is only of relevance to this specific case. You can draw your conclusions, for sure, but only a court could rule on *any* supposed GPL violation.

It depends on the local jurisdiction whether past sentences have a role or not in future sentences. In USA they certainly have, in Italy only in certain circumstances, but in any case the point is that people tried to fight against FSF and lost. No one won so far, so this should be a hint for you to read the FAQ carefully and abide to it as much as possible.

Quote:

Again, only a court could do a final ruling.

And so? Does that mean you're willing to go to court in order to prove that your usage of the GPL is correct? Feel free to do so! Bur remeber that it's already been tested in court.

Quote:

Not really. IIRC the GPL FAQ states that piping does not cause your program to become GPL (i.e. you open a pipe to a GPL'ed program). It makes me wonder why this isn't a derivate work then, because it essentially has the same result only with a different mechanism.

Read the FAQ again, you missed an important part.

The FAQ says that IPC by means of pipes, sockets and so on is generally not considered deriving work from the program you're connecting to. However, if the protocol ties the two programs very close to each other in such a way that one knows about the inner details of the other, then it may be considered a derivative work.

Last edited by falemagn on 16-Aug-2005 at 10:26 AM.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Quote:

But what actually happened I think was that the author AND the public where informed before the FSF ever got to hear about it.

Sorry, this "AND" is wrong. I informed the autor privately, he brought the topic public, see amiga.hu/ Forum.

-- tokai

_________________
tokai.binaryriot.org binaryriot.de

Quote:

Not at all. It's actually a good idea, to inform the author first. But what actually happened I think was that the author AND the public where informed before the FSF ever got to hear about it.

Thiking isn't knowing, you should know that It was DvPlayer's author himself who brought the matter to the public, on some hungarian fora. Piru contacted him privately, and some other people have contacted him privately earlier.

Quote:

I am amazed about your suggestive style of writing. Go figure.

Is that a compliment or an insult?

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

popular news this it seems.

_________________
"I don't know whether nice people tend to grow roses or growing roses makes people nice"

Quote:

I am not a linguist, nor did I say it was wrong to write what he wrote.

Sure you said it: you said he wrote a threat, and that a threat is wrong, hence you said that it was wrong to write what he wrote.

Quote:

I just contradicted Alkis' statement that there was no threat in the mail that Piru send. Where did I say I would have worded it differently?

Well, I just asked you how would you have worded it in order to not make it sound like a treat! I mean, you said that it's ok to inform the author before informing FSF, so how should Piru have worded his sentence in order to let that message pass through without making it sound like a treat?

Last edited by falemagn on 16-Aug-2005 at 10:33 AM.
Last edited by falemagn on 16-Aug-2005 at 10:32 AM.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

I would like to point you to following link (thx. to Cobra for pointing me to it):

http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/legal.php

Quote from the second paragraph:
Quote:

Be advised that FFmpeg incorporates several modules that are covered under The GNU General Public License, notably liba52 and libpostproc. If you use these components in your project, you are expected to release your whole application under the GPL if you distribute your project at all. This is the full text of the GPL.

Fact is: the GPL components (namely liba52) were used knowingly, hence the first DvPlayer Demoversion is GPL. Everyone who owns a copy of the binary has the legal right to get the source by the author. There is no discussion required here.

-- tokai


It's still a pity that the whole problem couldn't be solved by all parties privately w/o the public bashing around. Well... but what one expects from todays Amiga Community.

_________________
tokai.binaryriot.org binaryriot.de

Quote:

Well, I just asked you how would you have worded it in order to not make it sound like a treat! I mean, you said that it's ok to inform the author before informing FSF, so how should Piru have worded his sentence in order to let that message pass through without making it sound like a treat?

Well surely the polite way to go about things would be to point out that since the program was using GPL code without any mention of the program being GPL itself, it could be in violoation of the GPL?

Then, if the author of the program did not respond in a timely fashion or with adequate assurance that the program would either be GPL'd or that he was in contact with the author of the code that was used with a view to sorting out the issue, you could mention that failure to respond adequately would force you to refer the matter to the FSF.

Jumping straight in with "you've used GPL code in your program, so give me the source code, or I'll refer this to the FSF" (which is how I read the e-mail that was posted) is overly aggressive and could be considered to be threatening.

Now I should add I'm only basing this on having read the e-mail that was sent. If there was any prior communication about the issue, then that would change things.

Of course, this is all in my own opinion.

Last edited by madtrekker on 16-Aug-2005 at 11:22 AM.

Quote:

Sorry, this "AND" is wrong. I informed the autor privately, he brought the topic public, see amiga.hu/ Forum.

Not true. The issue was popped up on IRC channels first.

Quote:

Fact is: the GPL components (namely liba52) were used knowingly, hence the first DvPlayer Demoversion is GPL. Everyone who owns a copy of the binary has the legal right to get the source by the author. There is no discussion required here.

Fact: DvPlayer isn't GPL, use the latest (clean, GPL free) LGPL version of avcodec.library (available on os4depot).

Quote:

It's still a pity that the whole problem couldn't be solved by all parties privately w/o the public bashing around.

Easy: Next time don't start bashing on IRC channels.

Quote:

Well... but what one expects from todays Amiga Community.

I aggree.

@tokai

Quote:

Fact is: the GPL components (namely liba52) were used knowingly, hence the first DvPlayer Demoversion is GPL.

You're wrong there. Obviously if I knew about the issue before hand, I wouldn't have releaset DvPlayer yet. avcodec.library is a seperate project and I am not involved in its development. The documentation in the avcodec.library archive that was available at the time of the DvPlayer release had no mention of any GPL code in there. Any information about this issue was gathered after I have been informed that they may be some GPL licensing issues involved with avcodec.library.

I have asked the maintainer of avcodec.library to make a version without any GPL code and that is available now. If somebody builds and distributes a version of avcodec.library which has GPL code, I cannot be responsible for that.

Quote:

3. At last years PUSH some MOS developers showed some new OS modules, including similar library to avcodec.library, so MOS users wouldn't really gain anything from opensourcing DVPlayer.

Except that it's still not released after these years... And who knows if it will ever be released...

Leo.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

Quote:

Now I should add I'm only basing this on having read the e-mail that was sent. If there was any prior communication about the issue, then that would change things.

From what I know, there was prior comunication to that email, from other people.

_________________
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
~~ Henry Ford

Looks like I can finally release uade.player for AmiNetRadio.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

I was going to watch Days of our Lives today, but heck I just need to visit aw.net for todays (or weeks) dosage of F*CKING CRAP!



*lock*

/shoe