[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Sally sa...@mailinator.com added the comment: 1) This developer has been in compliance with the GPL since 2006. 2) This developer is a contributor to FFMPEG. 3) The GPL is not a license to dictate arbitrary terms to people who use GPL software. The power of the GPL does not extend past the terms in the GPL itself. 4) Therefore, you cannot dictate that someone change the license of some other software because they also distribute GPL software under the GPL. 5) Further, the audacity of threatening to sue a developer who contributed to open source for failing to sufficiently lick your ass, is the reason the word Freetard was invented. 6) Since this developer is in compliance with the terms of the GPL, and you refuse to recognize this, you refuse to recognize the actual terms of the GPL, and thus, as far as the FFMPEG group is concerned, the GPL is repudiated. 7) Therefore, no developer should bother to attempt compliance with the GPL since you do not recognize the GPL yourselves. If you're going to hold people to the terms of the GPL, you must be held to them as well. This developer has followed the terms, but you have not. Therefore, you reject the GPL, and by rejecting it, lose the right to enforce it. Diego, and every other freetard like him- you do not get to lie about what someone has done, and then get self righteous towards them in response. Doing so shows you to be a person of no integrity, nor honor, who has rejected truth. Thus, it is appropriate roine started ignoring you. There's no point in arguing with someone who is being dishonest from the start... especially since roine apparently has been in complaince since 2006. I came here to make sure the software I'm about to release is in complaince with the GPL... but now I discover that compliance is not sufficient. Your perspective is that nobody should be allowed to ship commercial software and you dishonestly claim the GPL allows you to dictate terms to these people, even when they are in compliance with the GPL. Therefore, I am going to use FFMPEG and I am going to not be in compliance with the GPL. My sensibilities have been offended, and since you shit all over your own license, I'm not going to respect it either. I'm sure you will delete this comment, just as you have repeatedly lied about this topic and ignored the fact that rione proved compliance immediately after this issue was raised. But if you ever wonder why people don't respect the GPL, look in the mirror. You're setting the example. -- status: open - closed substatus: reproduced - invalid FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Ronald S. Bultje rsbul...@gmail.com added the comment: Please don't change the status. -- status: closed - open substatus: invalid - reproduced FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
AzureSky as...@ashentech.com added the comment: common diego, sue them already FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Diego Biurrun di...@biurrun.de added the comment: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 07:04:19AM +, Roine Gustafsson wrote: We're acutely aware of the LGPL license and have made every effort from day one to be completely compliant. The source is published, with license and full attributions. So we're still on the shame list because we've spelt FFmpeg differently from the preferred spelling? Two months have passed with no further reaction from you. This is unfortunate. I have moved you to the section of violators making good progress on the hall of shame. Nonetheless this issue is not closed and you still have to make those final adjustments. Please take the time to fix the remaining issues so that we can close this issue and take you off the hall of shame. Thanks, Diego FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Diego Biurrun di...@biurrun.de added the comment: On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 06:31:58AM +, Roine Gustafsson wrote: The source has been available on the website from the day Chroma was released, as already explained in my first message. It would be nice if you could make the source a tad bit easier to find. Somewhere in your help system you write: FFMPEG Chroma's built-in codecs use the FFMPEG libavcodec media library. FFMPEG is an OpenSource library that contains codecs for a great many formats. It is available in source form at no cost from its website, http://www.ffmpeg.org. The source code for this library has been made available at http://chromaplayer.com/support/credit. The FFMPEG library is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), version 2.1. A copy of this license is included below. You are not required to agree to the LGPL software license to use Chroma; you are required to accept the terms of this license if you wish to redistribute the FFMPEG library. Please note that the LGPL license only relates to the FFMPEG library and does not apply to Chroma. FFmpeg is the preferred spelling. The last paragraph is not true as this discussion should have proven. The license of FFmpeg does have an effect on Chroma. Diego FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Carl Eugen Hoyos ceho...@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at added the comment: Thank you for updating the license, it does not violate the LGPL any more, imo. (Note that I believe it is not possible to fulfil the MPEGLA license terms and the LGPL at the same time, but that is no problem for me if you distribute FFmpeg sources under LGPL.) Now please do at least something to try to follow section 4 of the LGPL (accompany the library with the complete source code). I suggest a link from the download page to the credits page as minimum change. -- nosy: +cehoyos FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Roine Gustafsson ro...@mirailabs.com added the comment: License updated: http://chromaplayer.com/license.html FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue726
[issue726] Possible license violation, Chroma
Roine Gustafsson ro...@mirailabs.com added the comment: Chroma may be distributed bundled with additional software, plug-ins or accessories that may explicitly be labeled to be distributed under different license agreements. This agreement does not cover such items. FFmpeg issue tracker iss...@roundup.ffmpeg.org https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/roundup/ffmpeg/issue726
