Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
Latest response from Samsung + my reply. Also the same violation is found in another lib (libMali.so) -bugficks --- Hello, I know I can build libSDAL.so with files from libSDAL.zip, that is not the issue. The issue is that you can't simply copy functions, etc from FFmpeg into your own files and then say it's LGPL. FFmpeg has a checklist what you are allowed to do and what not (most notably use FFmpeg as whole and dynamic linking). Since you fail about every point in that checklist you are required to release full source code for both libSDAL and libMali. Thanks for looking into libMali.so issue. Kind Regards, -bugficks On 8/29/2014 1:11 PM, Opensource Request wrote:> [SAMSUNG OSRC COMMENTS DELIVERY NOTIFICATION] > > Dear bugficks, > > Thank you for your interest in our product. > For < libSDAL.so > request, we have done our internal review with > developer and license members. > This was an oversight and we do apologize for this error. > The only source code affected that was re-used from ffmpeg is tsmuxenc.c > and tsmuxenc.h. > As like our previous mail, the affected source code, other needed object > files and build script made available from: > http://opensource.samsung.com/ -> TV&VIDEO -> libSDAL.zip > You can make the whole libSDAL.so without any difficulties. > Other model's attected code that was re-used from ffmpeg will be > uploaded in a few days. > > And < libMALI.so >, we are currently reviewing internally. > We can reply for our inspection result within next week. > Thank you for your patience in advance. > > Kindly regards, > Samsung Visual Display Division's Opensource team. > On 8/26/2014 4:14 PM, Bug Ficks wrote: > Today Samsung re-uploaded libSDAL.zip. Archive now contains LGPL-2.1.txt > and they've added proper license headers to tsmuxenc.h/.c. > > It's still not a full source release though. > > For completeness I've added my last mail and their response below. > > -bugficks > > > --- > On 8/25/2014 9:21 AM, Opensource Request wrote: > > Dear Bug Ficks, > > Thank you for your advices. > Unfortunately we have missed LGPL v2.1 license notice on 2 files' > heading with our fault. > We will correct and re-upload as soon as possible. > Sorry for this fault. > > For other question, we have delivered to developers of your mail. > When their reply is arrives, we will let you know in shout time. > > Thank you at all time. > Kindly regards, > Samsung Visual Display Division's Opensource team. > > --- > Date : 2014-08-24 23:11:59 (GMT+09:00) > > Subject:Re: [Notification from Samsung Open Source Release Center] > > Hello, > > I finally got feedback from gpl-violations.org. > > I'm sorry to inform you that your libSDAL release is not sufficient. > Samsung is required to release full source code for libSDAL. > > You fail LGPL requirements for FFmpeg in about every point listed here: > https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html > > -no dynamic linking > -not using lib FFmpeg but only copied some functions/structures. > -you even removed FFmpeg license from tsmuxenc.h/.c > > Hence to conform with LGPL Samsung has to release complete source code. > > > Kind Regards, > -bugficks > > --- > > > > On 8/25/2014 12:11 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >> Hi bugficks, >> >>> In that zip are tsmuxenc.c and tsmuxenc.h which are based on >>> https://www.ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/mpegtsenc_8c.html >> >> Thanks for the precise detail. >> >>> If you're interested I'll keep you posted. >> >> Yes, please keep the list succinctly posted; its archive is a useful >> public resource for future Googlers. >> >> Cheers, Ralph. >> >> > > > >
Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
Today Samsung re-uploaded libSDAL.zip. Archive now contains LGPL-2.1.txt and they've added proper license headers to tsmuxenc.h/.c. It's still not a full source release though. For completeness I've added my last mail and their response below. -bugficks --- On 8/25/2014 9:21 AM, Opensource Request wrote: Dear Bug Ficks, Thank you for your advices. Unfortunately we have missed LGPL v2.1 license notice on 2 files' heading with our fault. We will correct and re-upload as soon as possible. Sorry for this fault. For other question, we have delivered to developers of your mail. When their reply is arrives, we will let you know in shout time. Thank you at all time. Kindly regards, Samsung Visual Display Division's Opensource team. --- Date : 2014-08-24 23:11:59 (GMT+09:00) Subject:Re: [Notification from Samsung Open Source Release Center] Hello, I finally got feedback from gpl-violations.org. I'm sorry to inform you that your libSDAL release is not sufficient. Samsung is required to release full source code for libSDAL. You fail LGPL requirements for FFmpeg in about every point listed here: https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html -no dynamic linking -not using lib FFmpeg but only copied some functions/structures. -you even removed FFmpeg license from tsmuxenc.h/.c Hence to conform with LGPL Samsung has to release complete source code. Kind Regards, -bugficks --- On 8/25/2014 12:11 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi bugficks, > >> In that zip are tsmuxenc.c and tsmuxenc.h which are based on >> https://www.ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/mpegtsenc_8c.html > > Thanks for the precise detail. > >> If you're interested I'll keep you posted. > > Yes, please keep the list succinctly posted; its archive is a useful > public resource for future Googlers. > > Cheers, Ralph. > >
Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
Hi bugficks, > In that zip are tsmuxenc.c and tsmuxenc.h which are based on > https://www.ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/mpegtsenc_8c.html Thanks for the precise detail. > If you're interested I'll keep you posted. Yes, please keep the list succinctly posted; its archive is a useful public resource for future Googlers. Cheers, Ralph.
Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
They're using FFmpeg in different places and they provide "Show Open Source Licenses" from main menu. This case is different though. They didn't use lib as a whole but just copied and renamed some functions. They even removed license header from those 2 source files. http://opensource.samsung.com -> TV -> ETC -> libSDAL.zip In that zip are tsmuxenc.c and tsmuxenc.h which are based on https://www.ffmpeg.org/doxygen/trunk/mpegtsenc_8c.html Also as Engel pointed out they didnt comply to FFmpeg LGPL requirements (https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html). I just emailed Samsung again that they failed about every point from that checklist and are required to release full source code. If you're interested I'll keep you posted. Thanks at all for provided input! Kind Regards, -bugficks On 8/23/2014 9:15 AM, Wiedemann, Claus-Peter wrote: > If they are using FFmpeg according to LGPL, i.e as a library and are > otherwise complying with the license terms then this seems to be ok. But they > don't seem to comply since they would have had to provide the source code of > the whole library, including their changes. Only one source file doesn't seem > to be the whole library. Did they provide the LGPL license text with the > product? > > Claus-Peter > >> Am 23.08.2014 um 08:46 schrieb "Bug Ficks" : >> >> Hello, >> >> about 4 weeks ago I've emailed Samsung about a license violation in one >> of their core libraries used in their SmartTVs. They've copied and >> renamed some parts from FFmpeg. >> Yesterday they finally released "source" which was exactly one .c and >> one .h file with code copied from FFmpeg plus a bunch of precompiled files. >> Since FFmpeg can be used with either GPL or LGPL my question is, can >> Samsung decide to use LGPL after they've already been caught in a >> license violation? >> >> Kind Regards, >> -bugficks >> > > BearingPoint GmbH > Geschäftsführer: Marcel Nickler (Vorsitzender), Hans-Werner Wurzel (stellv. > Vorsitzender), Kiumars Hamidian, Kai Wächter, Dr. Robert Wagner > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Beat Leimbacher > Sitz: Frankfurt am Main > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55490 > > > The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, > disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted > to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are > not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message > to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof > from your system. >
Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Bug Ficks wrote: > Since FFmpeg can be used with either GPL or LGPL my question is, can > Samsung decide to use LGPL after they've already been caught in a > license violation? > FFmpeg is licensed LGPLv2.1+, unless optional parts that are GPLv2+ are used. The project maintains a license compliance checklist: https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html
Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Bug Ficks wrote: > Hello, > > about 4 weeks ago I've emailed Samsung about a license violation in one > of their core libraries used in their SmartTVs. They've copied and > renamed some parts from FFmpeg. > Yesterday they finally released "source" which was exactly one .c and > one .h file with code copied from FFmpeg plus a bunch of precompiled files. > Since FFmpeg can be used with either GPL or LGPL my question is, can > Samsung decide to use LGPL after they've already been caught in a > license violation? > > Kind Regards, > -bugficks > > Hi bugficks, >From my understanding FFmpeg's license depends on what features you enable. If they don't use any GPL part, I'd say they're free to use LGPL. Also, as far as I know, if a piece of software is distributed, the distributor is free to choose whatever license is compatible with any upstream license that was granted to them. (e.g. for BSD+GPL they're free to choose either license). But better await answer from the guru's on this list. Regards, Stijn
Re: Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
If they are using FFmpeg according to LGPL, i.e as a library and are otherwise complying with the license terms then this seems to be ok. But they don't seem to comply since they would have had to provide the source code of the whole library, including their changes. Only one source file doesn't seem to be the whole library. Did they provide the LGPL license text with the product? Claus-Peter > Am 23.08.2014 um 08:46 schrieb "Bug Ficks" : > > Hello, > > about 4 weeks ago I've emailed Samsung about a license violation in one > of their core libraries used in their SmartTVs. They've copied and > renamed some parts from FFmpeg. > Yesterday they finally released "source" which was exactly one .c and > one .h file with code copied from FFmpeg plus a bunch of precompiled files. > Since FFmpeg can be used with either GPL or LGPL my question is, can > Samsung decide to use LGPL after they've already been caught in a > license violation? > > Kind Regards, > -bugficks > BearingPoint GmbH Geschäftsführer: Marcel Nickler (Vorsitzender), Hans-Werner Wurzel (stellv. Vorsitzender), Kiumars Hamidian, Kai Wächter, Dr. Robert Wagner Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Beat Leimbacher Sitz: Frankfurt am Main Registergericht: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55490 The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your system.
Samsung (L)GPL violation (FFmpeg/SmartTV)
Hello, about 4 weeks ago I've emailed Samsung about a license violation in one of their core libraries used in their SmartTVs. They've copied and renamed some parts from FFmpeg. Yesterday they finally released "source" which was exactly one .c and one .h file with code copied from FFmpeg plus a bunch of precompiled files. Since FFmpeg can be used with either GPL or LGPL my question is, can Samsung decide to use LGPL after they've already been caught in a license violation? Kind Regards, -bugficks
