Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
> So whether or not you agree with the current licensing structure, if you> >want to use ffmpeg components you have to play by those rules. Well, of course, but that's not really my concern: it's more that even if you were playing by the rules, it might actually be quite difficult to prove that. Someone could claim that the source code being distributed was not the source code used to compile the binary in question, and it would be next to impossible to prove otherwise - especially as you'd be trying to persuade a court full of people who are not software engineers and have only the haziest understanding of what code and compiled objects even are. This is not a problem specific to ffmpeg, it's just a piece of software that seems especially likely to be targeted for this sort of thing, given what it does. P ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
On 11/28/2023 4:09 AM, Phil Rhodes via ffmpeg-user wrote: The thing which makes all this a bit difficult is whether it's possible (or easy) to prove that a given distributed binary is actually compiled from the source code one is offering. I'm not sure that this has ever been tested in court - most of the (L)GPL stuff hasn't, much - but it's not obvious to how someone could prove that if there were ever a dispute. FWIW, BusyBox has taken on some commercial organizations to court and prevailed, search "busybox copyright lawsuit" and you'll get things like https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/court-rules-gpl-part-of-a-well-pleaded-case/ (summary judgement) https://www.computerworld.com/article/2537947/open-source-legal-group-strikes-again-on-busybox--suing-verizon.html So whether or not you agree with the current licensing structure, if you want to use ffmpeg components you have to play by those rules. Later, z! ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
As has been said, it would be essentially impossible to track down everyone who's contributed to a project the size of ffmpeg and gain permission of each to alter the licence, so the discussion is effectively moot. Another reason it's moot is that open source is effectively a religion to a lot of people, Stallman is one of its prophets, and the licence he originated is one of its sacred texts. The question being asked here is perhaps a little naïve but that explains the vehemence of the response. Asking people to give up GPL is like pissing on their sainted aunt. The thing that always makes me laugh about this is a piece written years ago for O'Reilly in which it was argued that the GPL is unnecessarily confusing, and the person making that argument had been senior in the Perl community. When Perl people are criticising something for being impenetrable, it's probably time to take note. The thing which makes all this a bit difficult is whether it's possible (or easy) to prove that a given distributed binary is actually compiled from the source code one is offering. I'm not sure that this has ever been tested in court - most of the (L)GPL stuff hasn't, much - but it's not obvious to how someone could prove that if there were ever a dispute. It would be difficult to create a build system which would create a bit-identical binary twice from the same source tree, and other approaches (use of the strings command is often suggested) are obviously far from conclusive and tremendously easy to fake. In the end, most open source licences work because people mostly obey the spirit of them and, I suspect, for no other reason. I suspect many of them are broken constantly and it's okay because nobody's reading the program flash out of most of the world's shipped SoCs and trying to figure out what's in there. P On Tuesday, 28 November 2023 at 11:40:39 GMT, Rob Hallam wrote: As has been stated, it seems vanishingly unlikely there will be a relicense. However, it seems there is a misconception about the GPL here: On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 10:24, Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena wrote: >*GPL means that all forks need to be public, not that the modifications need to > be upstreamed. The GPL does not require "all forks need to be public". A private entity (company, organisation) can use a GPL'd project internally and they never have to release their code. [0] This comes up so frequently it has a FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic Of course, if the product is released, users have the right to request a copy of the source to the product. That is of course the point of copyleft- if you build on the freely-available work of other people, others should be able to use your work freely too. Cheers, Rob -- [0]: Note that another option would be calling an ffmpeg binary from a (publically-released) proprietary program, but naturally the source of ffmpeg (including any modifications) would need to be available on request; and if the two programs had sufficient shared state, they may be considered as a single program and so again covered by the GPL. ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
As has been stated, it seems vanishingly unlikely there will be a relicense. However, it seems there is a misconception about the GPL here: On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 10:24, Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena wrote: >*GPL means that all forks need to be public, not that the modifications need to > be upstreamed. The GPL does not require "all forks need to be public". A private entity (company, organisation) can use a GPL'd project internally and they never have to release their code. [0] This comes up so frequently it has a FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic Of course, if the product is released, users have the right to request a copy of the source to the product. That is of course the point of copyleft- if you build on the freely-available work of other people, others should be able to use your work freely too. Cheers, Rob -- [0]: Note that another option would be calling an ffmpeg binary from a (publically-released) proprietary program, but naturally the source of ffmpeg (including any modifications) would need to be available on request; and if the two programs had sufficient shared state, they may be considered as a single program and so again covered by the GPL. ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Licensing is not the issue. Show of force required. On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:41 AM Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 28.11.23 um 11:35 schrieb David Bernat: > > Please unsubscribe. I have sent numerous requests. > > what is your problem? > > nobody needs another 10 mails within minutes in the style of "This is > not meant to be used as a library. This is an application" > > it's not possible to change the license, it won't happen and both where > statet clearly - so no reason to ride the dead horse in another 10 mails > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 AM Reindl Harald > > wrote: > > > >> > >> Am 28.11.23 um 11:32 schrieb Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena: > >>> This is the reason OpenJDK is successful though at this point of time > >> they > >>> are very well at a point they can change the license. > >>> > >>> GPL nature of the license prevented fragmentation by de-incentivising > >>> competing incompatible hard forks. > >> > >> leave us in peace - a license change won't happen even if it would be > >> possible but it isn't > >> > >> case closed > > ___ > ffmpeg-user mailing list > ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". > ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Am 28.11.23 um 11:35 schrieb David Bernat: Please unsubscribe. I have sent numerous requests. what is your problem? nobody needs another 10 mails within minutes in the style of "This is not meant to be used as a library. This is an application" it's not possible to change the license, it won't happen and both where statet clearly - so no reason to ride the dead horse in another 10 mails On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 AM Reindl Harald wrote: Am 28.11.23 um 11:32 schrieb Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena: This is the reason OpenJDK is successful though at this point of time they are very well at a point they can change the license. GPL nature of the license prevented fragmentation by de-incentivising competing incompatible hard forks. leave us in peace - a license change won't happen even if it would be possible but it isn't case closed ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Noted. No worries. Just asked to see if it is a possibility. On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 at 16:04, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 28.11.23 um 11:32 schrieb Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena: > > This is the reason OpenJDK is successful though at this point of time > they > > are very well at a point they can change the license. > > > > GPL nature of the license prevented fragmentation by de-incentivising > > competing incompatible hard forks. > > leave us in peace - a license change won't happen even if it would be > possible but it isn't > > case closed > ___ > ffmpeg-user mailing list > ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". > ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Please unsubscribe. I have sent numerous requests. On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 5:34 AM Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 28.11.23 um 11:32 schrieb Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena: > > This is the reason OpenJDK is successful though at this point of time > they > > are very well at a point they can change the license. > > > > GPL nature of the license prevented fragmentation by de-incentivising > > competing incompatible hard forks. > > leave us in peace - a license change won't happen even if it would be > possible but it isn't > > case closed > ___ > ffmpeg-user mailing list > ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". > ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Am 28.11.23 um 11:32 schrieb Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena: This is the reason OpenJDK is successful though at this point of time they are very well at a point they can change the license. GPL nature of the license prevented fragmentation by de-incentivising competing incompatible hard forks. leave us in peace - a license change won't happen even if it would be possible but it isn't case closed ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
This is the reason OpenJDK is successful though at this point of time they are very well at a point they can change the license. GPL nature of the license prevented fragmentation by de-incentivising competing incompatible hard forks. > ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
In application software fragmentation can hurt. *GPL reduces the risk of fragmentation. This is how the Linux Kernel succeeded. ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
This is not meant to be used as a library. This is an application. ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, at 11:23, Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena wrote: > changes once the changes become substatial. Once a library project grows > beyond a critical mass LGPL hurts the project more than helps. Let me introduce you to a small project: http://kernel.org/ -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
For a project like this, forking into a private or proprietary code base with substantial modifications is not feasible as maintaining it will be difficult and keeping up and modifying upstream changes will be very difficult. Also maintaining a private hard fork will be very costly. > copyleft so everyone actually improves it Being copyleft does not mean everyone improves it though many believe so. Increase in the number of users is what will drive improvements. Usable improvements are generally what gets actually upstreamed. Beyond a certain threshold, keeping private improvements has a larger cost than upstreaming it for large projects and when the modifications become extensive. *GPL means that all forks need to be public, not that the modifications need to be upstreamed. LGPL encourages to use a library as is without modification when used in proprietary code. Encouraging modifications and adaptation even in proriotery context will increase potential contributors who are familiar with the code base. Even if a project they work on is proprietary they can very well become contributors when those working on it in their own time. *GPL reduces local improvements either local, private or public from commential users and also subsequently upstreaming of the changes once the changes become substatial. Once a library project grows beyond a critical mass LGPL hurts the project more than helps. ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Am 28.11.23 um 07:28 schrieb Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena: - You cannot just borrow some code than using the library thanks god ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023, at 07:28, Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena wrote: > This is a crucial library that the whole world depends on and not a > commetilised product by one company. Hence it will be good if it can be > made copy free (https://copyfree.org). Still no. Because it is a crucial library, it is important to be copyleft so everyone actually improves it, instead of forking into proprietary codebases. jb -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf - President +33 672 704 734 ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
There are projects which have switched. Many of the authors can be identified by the commits. If they were employed and made the contribution as part of their work, contacting the employee might be the best option. Also namy contributors may be connected you can get the help of colleagues to contact them. LGLP: - You have to use the library as it is if you don't want to license the code as *GPL - Changing the API slightly might require the whole code to GPLed - You cannot just borrow some code than using the library - There are whitelisting issues for *GPL too GPL: - Nearly impossible to use in a commercial project This is a crucial library that the whole world depends on and not a commetilised product by one company. Hence it will be good if it can be made copy free (https://copyfree.org). S On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 at 23:33, Carl Zwanzig wrote: > On 11/27/2023 9:50 AM, Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena wrote: > > Is there a possibility to gradually move away from *GPL to a more liberal > > license? E.g. Apache 2.0 and/or MIT and/or BSD. > > That's unlikely as overall ffmpeg has contributions from many authors and > they'd all have to agree (also note the "non-free" compile option). > > While I'm not a big fan of the GPL, what restrictions does it impose that > are objectionable? > > z! > ___ > ffmpeg-user mailing list > ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". > ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
Re: [FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
On 11/27/2023 9:50 AM, Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena wrote: Is there a possibility to gradually move away from *GPL to a more liberal license? E.g. Apache 2.0 and/or MIT and/or BSD. That's unlikely as overall ffmpeg has contributions from many authors and they'd all have to agree (also note the "non-free" compile option). While I'm not a big fan of the GPL, what restrictions does it impose that are objectionable? z! ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
[FFmpeg-user] More Liberal Licensing
Hello, Is there a possibility to gradually move away from *GPL to a more liberal license? E.g. Apache 2.0 and/or MIT and/or BSD. Suminda ___ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
