On 2018/03/04 18:44, Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > The source code provided by Cary is another fake redacted source. > > The binary distributed by Cary contains an MQA decoder: > > Expecting them to give us some MQA decoder source code, distributed > under a GPL license is completing ridiculous: it would cost them a lot > more in fines&litigation with MQA Ltd to do that than it would cost them > in fines&litigation to use MPD illegally like they've been doing.
True. And the expectation that they open the MQA source code is based on a misunderstanding of the GPL. The GPL is not absolute: nobody needs to obey it. If you don't obey it, you don't have a license, and that is copyright violation, but nothing else. Still nothing forces you to obey the GPL. The GPL is just one way to resolve this. No, the MQA source code will not be opened by Cary Audio, even if just for one simple reason: they don't have it (I suppose). When I said "redacted/incomplete source code", I did not mean the MQA and Roon source code. I meant that Cary Audio removed lots of code they developed, for which they own the copyright. For example, they removed all traces of MQA bridging code. It is difficult to find an agreement with Cary Audio if they keep lying to me. They pretend to be honest and sorry, but their actions show the opposite. They try to fool me. > So IIUC the above source is the result of changing their code so the MQA > decoder is running in an external process, so that, from now on (more > or less) they don't breach the GPL. Where do you see that? (I havn't read everything so far.) > Obviously, it doesn't solve the harm done in the past, but you can't > expect it to be solve by providing the source code, it's just not > gonna happen. Better negotiate a settlement or plan for a legal battle. > Personally, I think in the long run we'd be better off trying to make > them friends than enemies, so I'd go for a reasonable settlement (where > the expected ROI is much higher than for a legal battle). I'd very much like a settlement, but Cary Audio pretends they can't hear me when I try to talk to them about it. They believe they can just go on violating my copyright as if nothing had ever happened. As if their license wasn't ever terminated, as if they don't need to explicitly get a new license from me (and other MPD copyright holders). Yes, how I wish Cary Audio would, for example, let their full-time engineers improve MPD and send me pull requests every other week. That would be the best for MPD and for Cary Audio and their customers. How I wish they had this much reason. Then look at Billy Wright's emails and try to make a prediction if that is a realistic outcome. I'd love to be proven wrong. Please. But I'm very very pessimistic. Max _______________________________________________ mpd-devel mailing list mpd-devel@musicpd.org http://mailman.blarg.de/listinfo/mpd-devel
