Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Moritz Barsnick  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:44:34 -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> > That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to
> OpenJPEG.
> > For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
> > fork the project.
>
> Is that the code you are proposing to integrate? Then why doesn't your
> fork just stick with the original's BSD license, and all this
> discussion would be moot?
>

Moritz,

Its a long story.

Aaron






>
> Moritz
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Moritz Barsnick]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:44:34 -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to OpenJPEG.
> For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
> fork the project.

Is that the code you are proposing to integrate? Then why doesn't your
fork just stick with the original's BSD license, and all this
discussion would be moot?

Moritz
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:58:24AM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Ismail Donmez  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> > > Hi Carl,
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> > >>
> > >> Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> > >> FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> > >>
> > >
> > > That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to
> > OpenJPEG.
> > > For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
> > > fork the project.
> > >
> > > Now, since parts of FFMpeg are licensed under GPL 2, and usage of them
> > > flips the license to GPL 2,
> > > it seems to me that adding an Affero component should not be a big deal.
> > >
> > > Or am I wrong?  Someone mentioned EVIL :)
> >
> > AGPL is incompatible with GPLv2:
> >
> > "Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is
> > also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you
> > cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it
> > however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you
> > are allowed to combine separate modules or source files released under
> > both of those licenses in a single project, which will provide many
> > programmers with all the permission they need to make the programs
> > they want. See section 13 of both licenses for details."
> >
> > See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#AGPLv3.0
> 
> 
> Thanks. I don't mean to start a nasty license argument here, just trying to
> understand things better.
> 
> Yes, AGPL is not compatible with GPL v2, but LGPL v2 is compatible with
> AGPL,  i.e. FFMPeg using AGPL component
> can simply be released under AGPL.  Not to create an AGPL fork of FFMPeg,
> just to offer this option for people
> who want to use the AGPL component.  This is the same situation as FFMpeg
> being released under GPL v2 when
> using GPL v2 components.

And then people use that FFmpeg with GPLv2 applications (MPlayer maybe?)
and you have an incomprehensible license mess.
I can only agree with the others: Adding AGPL into this is a horrible
idea.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Carl,



On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:

> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In fact, I couldn't find many j2k issues in trac.
>
> I see too many:
> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed=~j2k
>
> > Does your codec take advantage of multiple cores?
>
> Fortunately not: Since jpeg 2000 is an intra-only codec,
> using multiple cores to decode / encode several frames at
> the same time is possible and has a significantly lower
> overhead than implementing wavefront or slice-based
> multithreaded encoding or decoding.
>
> Last time I tested the native codec was faster than
> openjpeg on a single core.
>
> > Or is it only single threaded?
>
> > Because this is one of the chief reasons for OpenJPEG
> > being slow as molasses.
>
> I don't understand: It is possible (and FFmpeg does it) to
> use multi-threading when using Openjpeg but since this is
> possible with all intra-only (and therefore all jpeg 2000)
> codecs it does not make it faster than any of its rivals.
>

JPEG 2000 supports parallelism at the code block level.
So, to decode a single frame, all code blocks can be decoded
independently. This is useful to speed up decoding a single large image.



>
> Are you interested in working on FFmpeg's jpeg2000
> implementation? If not, please consider to promote ronin
> elsewhere...
>

If I was trying to promote ronin here, I don't think I am doing a very good
job :)

I may be able to help out with FFMPeg jpeg 2000, time permitting.

Kind Regards,
Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:

> In fact, I couldn't find many j2k issues in trac.

I see too many:
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?status=!closed=~j2k

> Does your codec take advantage of multiple cores?

Fortunately not: Since jpeg 2000 is an intra-only codec, 
using multiple cores to decode / encode several frames at 
the same time is possible and has a significantly lower 
overhead than implementing wavefront or slice-based 
multithreaded encoding or decoding.

Last time I tested the native codec was faster than 
openjpeg on a single core.

> Or is it only single threaded?

> Because this is one of the chief reasons for OpenJPEG 
> being slow as molasses.

I don't understand: It is possible (and FFmpeg does it) to 
use multi-threading when using Openjpeg but since this is 
possible with all intra-only (and therefore all jpeg 2000) 
codecs it does not make it faster than any of its rivals.

Are you interested in working on FFmpeg's jpeg2000 
implementation? If not, please consider to promote ronin 
elsewhere...

Carl Eugen

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Guys!

As an act of goodwill, I just "closed" a j2k bug in trac.

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/4653#comment:6

Turns out this was a bug in openjpeg :)


Kind Regards,
Aaron




On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:

> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> > >
> > > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> > > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> >
> > That would be OpenJPEG.
>
> (With the intention to distract from the fruitless
> license discussion: We will not accept AGPL contributions
> and we won't encourage you to start an AGPL fork.)
>
> No, FFmpeg contains a native Jpeg 2000 codec. I don't
> remember it being slow but it has missing features and
> it would be great if you worked on it. See trac (or the
> conformance samples) for examples for decoder problems,
> the encoder does not compress good enough.
>
> Carl Eugen
>
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Clément Bœsch]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
[...]
> Does your codec take advantage of multiple cores? Or is it only single
> threaded?

ffmpeg -h decoder=jpeg2000 will answer your question

[...]

-- 
Clément B.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:

> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > clearly, you do not have the time, otherwise there
> > would not be those issues in trac.
>
> Since this seems not clear to you:
> Nearly all those issues are also reproducible with
> Openjpeg, in addition some issues that are fixed in
> FFmpeg were still reproducible with Openjpeg when I
> last tested.
>


That is good to hear.  In fact, I couldn't find many j2k issues in trac.

Does your codec take advantage of multiple cores? Or is it only single
threaded?
Because this is one of the chief reasons for OpenJPEG being slow as
molasses.

Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:

> clearly, you do not have the time, otherwise there 
> would not be those issues in trac.

Since this seems not clear to you:
Nearly all those issues are also reproducible with 
Openjpeg, in addition some issues that are fixed in 
FFmpeg were still reproducible with Openjpeg when I 
last tested.

Carl Eugen

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Ronald,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Ronald S. Bultje 
wrote:

>
> >
> > Personally, I would recommend switching over to OpenJPEG:
> > BSD 2 license, ISO reference implementation for standard,
> > and large test suite. Rather than spending time on your native codec.
> > Just my 2 cents.  Codec development requires an enormous amount of time
> > and expertise to get right.
>
>
> (Ignoring the encoder for a second,) what makes you think we don't have
> that expertise?
>

I stand corrected about the expertise.  But, clearly, you do not have the
time, otherwise there would not be
those issues in trac.


Cheers,
Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Hendrik,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> > Hi Carl,
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> >> > > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> >> > > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> >> >
> >> > That would be OpenJPEG.
> >>
> >> (With the intention to distract from the fruitless
> >> license discussion: We will not accept AGPL contributions
> >> and we won't encourage you to start an AGPL fork.)
> >>
> >
> > Thanks. Don't worry, I am not interested in contributing my AGPL
> component
> > to FFMpeg.
> > Nor am I interested in forking FFMpeg.
> >
> > But, I would like to find a way of distributing FFMPeg with my codec,
> > so users can take advantage of it if they are interested.
> > This codec will be significantly faster than any other open source codec.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> No, FFmpeg contains a native Jpeg 2000 codec. I don't
> >> remember it being slow but it has missing features and
> >> it would be great if you worked on it. See trac (or the
> >> conformance samples) for examples for decoder problems,
> >> the encoder does not compress good enough.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks. I'm afraid I have my hands full with my own library :)
> >
> > Personally, I would recommend switching over to OpenJPEG:
> > BSD 2 license, ISO reference implementation for standard,
> > and large test suite. Rather than spending time on your native codec.
> > Just my 2 cents.  Codec development requires an enormous amount of time
> > and expertise to get right.
> >
>
> We already support using OpenJPEG for j2k, but that is no reason not
> to strive creating our own native implementations.
> In many cases before, the ffmpeg decoders in particular have been
> proven better than "reference" implementations, see vp9 for the most
> recent example.
>
> j2k is clearly not "done" in ffmpeg and still has a lot of way to go,
> but we do not plan to give up our efforts.
>


Yes, I see your point. In fact, this is exactly what I am doing with my own
library.

Anyways, Best of Luck !!!

Aaron




>
> - Hendrik
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:
>
>> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>> > > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
>> > >
>> > > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
>> > > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
>> >
>> > That would be OpenJPEG.
>>
>> (With the intention to distract from the fruitless
>> license discussion: We will not accept AGPL contributions
>> and we won't encourage you to start an AGPL fork.)
>>
>
> Thanks. Don't worry, I am not interested in contributing my AGPL component
> to FFMpeg.
> Nor am I interested in forking FFMpeg.
>
> But, I would like to find a way of distributing FFMPeg with my codec,
> so users can take advantage of it if they are interested.
> This codec will be significantly faster than any other open source codec.
>
>
>>
>> No, FFmpeg contains a native Jpeg 2000 codec. I don't
>> remember it being slow but it has missing features and
>> it would be great if you worked on it. See trac (or the
>> conformance samples) for examples for decoder problems,
>> the encoder does not compress good enough.
>>
>
> Thanks. I'm afraid I have my hands full with my own library :)
>
> Personally, I would recommend switching over to OpenJPEG:
> BSD 2 license, ISO reference implementation for standard,
> and large test suite. Rather than spending time on your native codec.
> Just my 2 cents.  Codec development requires an enormous amount of time
> and expertise to get right.
>

We already support using OpenJPEG for j2k, but that is no reason not
to strive creating our own native implementations.
In many cases before, the ffmpeg decoders in particular have been
proven better than "reference" implementations, see vp9 for the most
recent example.

j2k is clearly not "done" in ffmpeg and still has a lot of way to go,
but we do not plan to give up our efforts.

- Hendrik
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Hendrik,


On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> > Hi Hendrick
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> >> > If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
> >> > re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> AGPL is evil, please keep it out of FFmpeg.
> >>
> >
> > Would you mind telling me more about why you feel AGPL is evil ?
> >
>
> The problem with a license like the AGPL is that its inherently
> incompatible with anything else.
> Heck, you couldn't even build a non-free build with AGPL components,
> because non-free only governs distribution of the binary, but AGPL has
> extra conditions for things like being reachable over the network.
>
> Its a nightmare to combine with anything else.
>


Well, as I understand it, the only difference between GPL 3 and AGPL is the
definition of distribution: AGPL considers the network as another form of
distribution
To close the loophole where GPL software is run "in the cloud" and
modifications to the software
do not have to be made available to users.

So, if GPL 2 is acceptable, I don't see why AGPL is considered so terrible.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

Thanks for everyone's feedback, I hope I haven't offended anyone here.

Kind Regards,
Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:

> Hi Carl,
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
> wrote:
>
> > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> > > > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> > >
> > > That would be OpenJPEG.
> >
> > (With the intention to distract from the fruitless
> > license discussion: We will not accept AGPL contributions
> > and we won't encourage you to start an AGPL fork.)
> >
>
> Thanks. Don't worry, I am not interested in contributing my AGPL component
> to FFMpeg.
> Nor am I interested in forking FFMpeg.
>
> But, I would like to find a way of distributing FFMPeg with my codec,
> so users can take advantage of it if they are interested.
> This codec will be significantly faster than any other open source codec.
>
>
> >
> > No, FFmpeg contains a native Jpeg 2000 codec. I don't
> > remember it being slow but it has missing features and
> > it would be great if you worked on it. See trac (or the
> > conformance samples) for examples for decoder problems,
> > the encoder does not compress good enough.
> >
>
> Thanks. I'm afraid I have my hands full with my own library :)
>
> Personally, I would recommend switching over to OpenJPEG:
> BSD 2 license, ISO reference implementation for standard,
> and large test suite. Rather than spending time on your native codec.
> Just my 2 cents.  Codec development requires an enormous amount of time
> and expertise to get right.


(Ignoring the encoder for a second,) what makes you think we don't have
that expertise?

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Carl,


On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:

> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> > >
> > > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> > > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> >
> > That would be OpenJPEG.
>
> (With the intention to distract from the fruitless
> license discussion: We will not accept AGPL contributions
> and we won't encourage you to start an AGPL fork.)
>

Thanks. Don't worry, I am not interested in contributing my AGPL component
to FFMpeg.
Nor am I interested in forking FFMpeg.

But, I would like to find a way of distributing FFMPeg with my codec,
so users can take advantage of it if they are interested.
This codec will be significantly faster than any other open source codec.


>
> No, FFmpeg contains a native Jpeg 2000 codec. I don't
> remember it being slow but it has missing features and
> it would be great if you worked on it. See trac (or the
> conformance samples) for examples for decoder problems,
> the encoder does not compress good enough.
>

Thanks. I'm afraid I have my hands full with my own library :)

Personally, I would recommend switching over to OpenJPEG:
BSD 2 license, ISO reference implementation for standard,
and large test suite. Rather than spending time on your native codec.
Just my 2 cents.  Codec development requires an enormous amount of time
and expertise to get right.

Kind Regards,
Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Carl Eugen Hoyos]

Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> >
> > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> 
> That would be OpenJPEG.

(With the intention to distract from the fruitless 
license discussion: We will not accept AGPL contributions 
and we won't encourage you to start an AGPL fork.)

No, FFmpeg contains a native Jpeg 2000 codec. I don't 
remember it being slow but it has missing features and 
it would be great if you worked on it. See trac (or the 
conformance samples) for examples for decoder problems, 
the encoder does not compress good enough.

Carl Eugen

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On 22 March 2016 at 12:12, Aaron Boxer  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
> re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?
>
>
FFmpeg already has a native JPEG2000 encoder and decoder. It's slow, but
then again you can describe the entire jp2k format as "slow" for video
since very high bitrates and slow entropy encodings don't mix well. If you
think that you can do better than it, sure go ahead, but the current
encoder and decoders are here to stay unless you license your
implementation under the LGPL and submit a good enough patch to replace
them.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

On Mar 22, 2016 8:59 AM, "Hendrik Leppkes"  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> > Hi Hendrick
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> >> > If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
> >> > re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> AGPL is evil, please keep it out of FFmpeg.
> >>
> >
> > Would you mind telling me more about why you feel AGPL is evil ?
> >
>
> The problem with a license like the AGPL is that its inherently
> incompatible with anything else.
> Heck, you couldn't even build a non-free build with AGPL components,
> because non-free only governs distribution of the binary, but AGPL has
> extra conditions for things like being reachable over the network.
>
> Its a nightmare to combine with anything else.
>

Thanks. What is a non-free build?

___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:44:34AM -0400, Aaron Boxer wrote:
> Hi Carl,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:
> 
> > Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> >
> > Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> > FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> >
> 
> That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to OpenJPEG.
> For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
> fork the project.

at the risk of being redundant and distracting from the license
discussion ...

I think carl meant FFmpegs jpeg2000 code not OpenJPEG

[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.
-- Heraclitus


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> Hi Hendrick
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
>> > If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
>> > re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?
>> >
>>
>> AGPL is evil, please keep it out of FFmpeg.
>>
>
> Would you mind telling me more about why you feel AGPL is evil ?
>

The problem with a license like the AGPL is that its inherently
incompatible with anything else.
Heck, you couldn't even build a non-free build with AGPL components,
because non-free only governs distribution of the binary, but AGPL has
extra conditions for things like being reachable over the network.

Its a nightmare to combine with anything else.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Ismail,


On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Ismail Donmez  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> > Hi Carl,
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> >>
> >> Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> >> FFmpeg's implementation instead?
> >>
> >
> > That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to
> OpenJPEG.
> > For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
> > fork the project.
> >
> > Now, since parts of FFMpeg are licensed under GPL 2, and usage of them
> > flips the license to GPL 2,
> > it seems to me that adding an Affero component should not be a big deal.
> >
> > Or am I wrong?  Someone mentioned EVIL :)
>
> AGPL is incompatible with GPLv2:
>
> "Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is
> also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you
> cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it
> however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you
> are allowed to combine separate modules or source files released under
> both of those licenses in a single project, which will provide many
> programmers with all the permission they need to make the programs
> they want. See section 13 of both licenses for details."
>
> See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#AGPLv3.0


Thanks. I don't mean to start a nasty license argument here, just trying to
understand things better.

Yes, AGPL is not compatible with GPL v2, but LGPL v2 is compatible with
AGPL,  i.e. FFMPeg using AGPL component
can simply be released under AGPL.  Not to create an AGPL fork of FFMPeg,
just to offer this option for people
who want to use the AGPL component.  This is the same situation as FFMpeg
being released under GPL v2 when
using GPL v2 components.


Kind Regards,
Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Ismail Donmez]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:
>
>> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
>>
>> Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
>> FFmpeg's implementation instead?
>>
>
> That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to OpenJPEG.
> For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
> fork the project.
>
> Now, since parts of FFMpeg are licensed under GPL 2, and usage of them
> flips the license to GPL 2,
> it seems to me that adding an Affero component should not be a big deal.
>
> Or am I wrong?  Someone mentioned EVIL :)

AGPL is incompatible with GPLv2:

"Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is
also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you
cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it
however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you
are allowed to combine separate modules or source files released under
both of those licenses in a single project, which will provide many
programmers with all the permission they need to make the programs
they want. See section 13 of both licenses for details."

See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#AGPLv3.0
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Hendrick

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> > If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
> > re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?
> >
>
> AGPL is evil, please keep it out of FFmpeg.
>

Would you mind telling me more about why you feel AGPL is evil ?

Kind Regards,
Aaron


_

> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hi Carl,


On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Carl Eugen Hoyos  wrote:

> Aaron Boxer  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
>
> Why don't you work on fixing the remaining issues with
> FFmpeg's implementation instead?
>

That would be OpenJPEG.  I have made quite a few contributions to OpenJPEG.
For a number of reason which I don't want to bore you with, I decided to
fork the project.

Now, since parts of FFMpeg are licensed under GPL 2, and usage of them
flips the license to GPL 2,
it seems to me that adding an Affero component should not be a big deal.

Or am I wrong?  Someone mentioned EVIL :)



Aaron
__
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Boxer  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
> If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
> re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?
>

AGPL is evil, please keep it out of FFmpeg.

- Hendrik
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

[FFmpeg-devel] GP License question

[Aaron Boxer]

Hello,

I am developing a jpeg 2000 codec licensed under Affero GPL.
If I were to integrate this into FFMpeg, would I then have to
re-release FFMpeg under Affero GPL ?

I don't like forks, but it looks like this is the only way to do this.

Thanks,
Aaron
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel