
Hall of Shame: companies violating the ffmpeg license (GPL/LGPL) - mbrubeck
http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html
======
dtf
MediaCoder is a really great piece of freeware encoding software on Windows.
The author is quite clearly trying to understand and help out with the
licensing problems and instead comes up against the free software Spanish
inquisition:

    
    
      http://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue1162
    

Some people just have no social skills!

~~~
nash
The MediaCoder author would be a great example of such a person.

If the author of MediaCoder uses someone else's software, it's quite
reasonable he obeys their rules for that software. He obvisously didn't read
the licence for the software (even when asked multiple times). He even makes
claims about various software being in the public domain.

Seriously the ffmpeg authors are quite within their rights to be rude to
someone VIOLATING THEIR COPYRIGHT. You make it sound like MediaCoder author is
the injured party - he is not.

~~~
Confusion
You can't really expect anyone that is distributing software free of charge to
get a laywer to understand the (L)GPL. As I see it, everyone is on the same
side here, donating free time to create software that is offered free of
charge. I don't see how that warrants rudeness.

~~~
DarkShikari
Free of charge? He charges _$399_ for a premium version (which consists almost
entirely of ripped-off open source software), and you think he doesn't have
money to pay a lawyer?

~~~
pavlov
Based on the linked issue thread, the MediaCoder author also makes money by
bundling commercial crapware in the "free" version's installer.

------
jsz0
Let's be honest here. Some of the blame goes back to the FFMPEG folks. They
choose the LGPL which is certainly a less known/understood license and they
tack on a bunch of extra requirements. I'm looking at their license policy
page and I don't see any obvious link to a non-English version. If you're not
a license expert and you happen to lookup LGPL on the wiki for some guidance
you get:

The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter can be
linked to (in the case of a library, 'used by') a non-(L)GPLed program, and
regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.[1] This
non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any chosen terms if it is
not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the terms must allow
"modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging
such modifications."

I'm not arguing that the FFMPEG folks don't deserve respect and adherence to
their license terms. Just seems like they aren't really helping themselves
here either. If you make a situation confusing you cannot be angry when people
get confused. My personal feeling is if you want to do "free software" you
should remember the whole free part. The GPL and it's variants are too overtly
political for my tastes. The BSD license seems a bit more intellectually
honest.

~~~
Locke1689
Actually, they're being a little hypocritical too. They are very protective of
their license, but I know for a fact that a number of developers work in the
United States where large portions of the codec library violate US patent law.
Can't have it both ways guys...

~~~
noonespecial
Actually, you _can_ and _should_. Its the difference between patents and
copyrights. The (L)GPL pertains to the copyright on the actual code and the
laws are (in comparison) fairly universal and well understood.

Patents on the other hand pertain to a method of doing something (separate
from actual code) and are _far_ from certain and vary widely between
jurisdictions. The outcomes are decided in local courts based on a mix of
precedent and who can spend the most on lawyers.

In short, copyrights and patents have nothing whatsoever to do with each
other.

~~~
Locke1689
Well, I wouldn't say they don't have anything to do with each other. They are
both forms of intellectual property law. While I would agree that patents are
often subject to different regulations and burdens of proof, your assumption
that all patent cases are flimsy is without basis. First, you mistake software
patents for many traditional patents. For example, patents on drugs are
routinely upheld in US courts.

You are correct that software patents can be nebulous. However, in the case of
codec patents, like that of H.264, the new MPEG video standard, SCOTUS and
patent cases have routinely upheld the validity of similar software patents.

For an overview of relevant statutes, I would point to the USPTO documents,
which outline the standards that most software patents are viewed under (by
the USPTO and many practicing US patent lawyers)[1]. While _In re Bilski_ [2],
recently granted a _writ_ , may present a new view on some of the more
spurious (and business-oriented) software patents, it seems that SCOTUS is
more than willing to uphold the patents in practical implementation
cases[3][4][5].

If this were a discussion based purely on ideology then upholding copyright
but ignoring patent rights may be defensible, however to suggest that they
will bring legal action to defend their copyright but to ignore or refuse that
they should be held accountable in patent litigation is a tad hypocritical.

[1] <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100.htm>

[2] <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf>

[3] <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1112/>

[4] <http://digital-law-online.info/cases/32PQ2D1031.htm>

[5] <http://digital-law-online.info/cases/31PQ2D1545.htm>

~~~
DarkShikari
Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the _users_ of the
software; this is generally the model that open source works under in general
(see, for example, LAME). In many jurisdictions, users can and _do_ pay MPEG-
LA licensing fees when using ffmpeg; no "infringement" takes place. I have
worked for companies that have used ffmpeg and x264 in their systems; this is
extremely standard procedure.

Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are
much more dubious than in the US.

~~~
Locke1689
_Also, most of the developers are based in Europe, where software patents are
much more dubious than in the US._

Most? I was aware that many were, but I know at least a couple are not.
However, in my first comment I was very clear that I was speaking only to US
developers -- Europeans, feel free to ignore.

 _Patents do not apply to the developers, they apply to the users of the
software_

Not in the United States. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever
without authority _makes_ , uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any
patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the
patent."[1]

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html>

~~~
DarkShikari
But they're not making the patented invention; they're making a description
(the source code) of the patented invention. They're distributing the source
code. Hence the moniker: "Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder" (it's a description of
one).

On the other hand, distributors of binaries do have to take into account
patent laws.

~~~
Locke1689
That is their claim, yes. As far as I know, no one has ever tested this in a
US court. I would not be hopeful. Also, the initial term "Lame Ain't an MP3
Encoder" referred to their use of the original ISO code along with a patch.
Since one would have to use the MPEG/ISO code and you couldn't encode mp3
files only using the LAME patch/library, they avoided the patent issue. Since
2000 they have instead shipped source code with a complete rewrite of the ISO
code. They also post a notice that an MP3 patent license may be required for
use in some countries. According to the conventional interpretation of US
patent law, the US would be one of them.

Edit: By the way, don't be fooled, our small legal disagreement doesn't affect
my very positive view of you as a person and developer :)

------
amichail
This is free advertising.

