Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga Software News => Topic started by: Troels_E on April 17, 2009, 08:44:33 PM
-
Ultimate goal of this bounty is to get:
a) A standalone Flash player, callable from within scripts, and
b) A webbrowser plugin based on the NetScape plugin API.
(http://amigabounty.net/images/projecticons/31.png)
The Gnash bounty is meant to help close the gap in webbrowsing experience by bringing Macromedia/Adobe Flash support to AmigaOS4.1.
Ultimate goal of this bounty is to get:
a) A standalone Flash player, callable from within scripts, and
b) A webbrowser plugin based on the NetScape plugin API.
Afxgroup (Andrea Palmatè) has asked to be assigned to the Gnash bounty which was originally proposed by Samo79.
The deadline for this project is 1st March 2010 for both a working standalone player and a working NSAPI plugin.
Amigabounty.net Gnash bounty.
Gnash - Flash Movie Player for AmigaOS4.1 (http://amigabounty.net/?function=viewproject&projectid=31)
Gnash website.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/)
Developer website for Gnash.
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnash/ (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnash/)
-
Honest answer to honest question: Why bother? You are short of Inet ads?
-
Short of being able to go on Youtube more like!!
-
"Gnash is GPL2'd, and the Free Software Foundation has the copyright," GNU Gnash maintainer Rob Savoye told internetnews.com. "So the standalone player can be used by anyone, but the Flash player code can only be used by other free software projects under the terms of the GPL."
It's GPLv3 these days, but that's beside the point.
Who is going to change OWB and IBrowse license to (L)GPL?
-
Short of being able to go on Youtube more like!!
:) But really, there's better way to watch those videos. Gnash is waste of cpu for them, IMHO. Bloated and uses many times more cpu for flv than mplayer for example.
-
Honestly I think that being able to browse video sites normally would be worth the extra CPU time.
-
@Piru
Who is going to change OWB and IBrowse license to (L)GPL?
Well, OWB's BSD license is already compatible with GPL, so there's no issue there.
As a flash plugin it would be an NSAPI plugin (i.e., the one that Firefox uses). Seeing as IBrowse also uses that API, it may work with IBrowse whether the IBrowse developers agree to it or not. You can't force the developer of a program to open-source their app just because someone else comes along and writes a GPL'd plugin that works with it.
Hans
-
@Hans_
OWB is licensed under BSD license, unless specified otherwise in WebCore/JSCore code where the original licenses apply (APSL, LGPL and BSD).
http://www.sand-labs.org/owb (http://www.sand-labs.org/owb)
Code licensed under a permissive free software license, such as the BSD license, can be incorporated into copylefted (e.g. GPL'd) projects. Such code is thus "GPL-compatible". There is no need to secure the consent of the original authors. In contrast, code under the GPL cannot be relicensed under the BSD license without securing the consent of all copyright holders. Thus the two licenses are compatible, but the combination as a whole must be distributed under the terms of the GPL, not the permissive license.
Existing free software BSDs tend to avoid including software licensed under the GPL in the core operating system, or the base system, except as a last resort when alternatives are non-existent or vastly less capable, such as with GCC. The OpenBSD project has acted to remove GPL-licensed tools in favor of BSD-licensed alternatives, some newly written and some adapted from older code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licence)
-
@Piru
But no-one is talking about making Gnash an integral part of OWB; it would be a plugin using the Netscape Plugin API (NPAPI). The NPAPI is used by many different browsers, and many different plugins, not all of which are GPL.
If it would make you feel better we could declare the Amiga OS port of OWB to be GPL if and only if a GPL plugin is used with it. The BSD "version" wouldn't need a single line of code to be disabled since they're allowed to use the NPAPI.
Hans
-
@Hans_
But no-one is talking about making Gnash an integral part of OWB; it would be a plugin using the Netscape Plugin API (NPAPI).
GPL is clear about dynamic linking, anything linking to the GPL project (statically or dynamically) must be GPL compatible. As the authors state Gnash should only be used with GPL compatible apps.
Using plugin API to circumvate this is IMHO dubious at best. It is very clear that the intent of this thing is to use it with OWB and IBrowse, both GPL incompatible projects.
Much like "external" liba52-plugin for DVplayer is obviously there to circumvent GPL.
It seems to be that much of the amiga community has no regard for licenses.
If it would make you feel better we could declare the Amiga OS port of OWB to be GPL
That'd solve the problem for OWB.
-
But no-one is talking about making Gnash an integral part of OWB; it would be a plugin using the Netscape Plugin API (NPAPI).
GPL is clear about dynamic linking, anything linking to the GPL project (statically or dynamically) must be GPL compatible. As the authors state Gnash should only be used with GPL compatible apps.
Using plugin API to circumvate this is IMHO dubious at best. It is very clear that the intent of this thing is to use it with OWB and IBrowse, both GPL incompatible projects.
The BSD license is GPL compatible, at least the one used in OWB is; look it up. OWB is GPL compatible.
You do have a point about IBrowse, which is something I didn't even think about when I looked at the bounty requirements. That part of the bounty is incompatible with Gnash's license and should probably be removed. Good luck trying to stop people from using Gnash with IBrowse though.
Much like "external" liba52-plugin for DVplayer is obviously there to circumvent GPL.
It's not a plugin for DvPlayer; it's a plugin for avcodec. DvPlayer uses the avcodec library on the assumption that it is LGPL, as the avcodec project itself specifies. There's a reason why the liba52 plugin isn't distributed with DvPlayer. You can't point the finger at the author of DvPlayer with this one since he developed it with the (correct) understanding that avcodec is LGPL.
Hans
-
@Hans_
The BSD license is GPL compatible, at least the one used in OWB is; look it up. OWB is GPL compatible.
But still, as far as I know the licensing would need to be changed for that, which would be kind of icky to maintain. But I guess that wouldn't be that much of a burden.
Good luck trying to stop people from using Gnash with IBrowse though.
Yeah well, there's no way to stop them really, as DvPlayer has shown.
It's not a plugin for DvPlayer; it's a plugin for avcodec. DvPlayer uses the avcodec library on the assumption that it is LGPL, as the avcodec project itself specifies. There's a reason why the liba52 plugin isn't distributed with DvPlayer. You can't point the finger at the author of DvPlayer with this one since he developed it with the (correct) understanding that avcodec is LGPL.
Older DvPlayer specifically listed AC3 sound support as a feature of DvPlayer. In order to compile libavcodec with liba52 built-in, you must pass GPL switch to configure. So yes, I can point the finger at the DvPlayer author and I do (ignorance is no excuse).
"2.3 Features
[...]
DvPlayer supports many audio and video codecs via avcodec.library,
including MPEG 1/2, DiVX, XVID, MJPG, Cinepak, Indeo Video, PCM, MP2,
MP3, AC3 (stereo, 5.1) and more..."
"2.2 Requirements
[...]
avcodec.library 51.34 or newer is also required. This library is available
for download on the DvPlayer web page."
"3. Installation
[...]
DvPlayer requires avcodec.library 51.34 or higher. You must download and
install it also. It can be downloaded from the DvPlayer webpage."
My requests for the source code were ignored.
Instead the liba52 was separated to a "plugin" which the users must install for full functionality.
Doing this rather than complying with the request for the source code is dubious.
I hope something similar won't happen with Gnash. The best situation would be that the bounty would be updated so that the author is mandated to state the licensing clearly in the final releases (perhaps the plugin should display a message displaying the GPL license at first invocation or so).
Personally I find it somewhat unfortunate that Gnash is GPL. If it was LGPL it would be much easier to use it as a plugin.
-
But still, as far as I know the licensing would need to be changed for that, which would be kind of icky to maintain. But I guess that wouldn't be that much of a burden.
The overall license doesn't have to be changed at all. If OWB is released with Gnash, then these two as one package become GPL as per the licenses of both apps; if OWB is downloaded on its own, it can be left as BSD. There is no reason why OWB's license has to be completely transformed. This is the way that the GPL FAQ explains it.
BTW, what's your position on Gnash using GStreamer to get around codec Patenting issues? They basically say that if Gnash is compiled with ffmpeg then you're responsible for complying with Patented material, but if you use GStreamer, then it's up to the user to pick the codecs that they use, so it's no longer your problem. That sounds just as "dubious" as anything else that you're complaining about. Or is it somehow okay, because it's a corporation that owns the IP that's being worked around?
Older DvPlayer specifically listed AC3 sound support as a feature of DvPlayer. In order to compile libavcodec with liba52 built-in, you must pass GPL switch to configure. So yes, I can point the finger at the DvPlayer author and I do (ignorance is no excuse).
The avcodec port is maintained by someone else, not the DvPlayer author, and it is the avcodec author who enabled the switch. It is perfectly understandable that the DvPlayer author didn't realize that the inclusion of liba52 made it GPL.
My requests for the source code were ignored.
Instead the liba52 was separated to a "plugin" which the users must install for full functionality.
Doing this rather than complying with the request for the source code is dubious.
Come on, you knew that the DvPlayer author had overlooked the fact that an avcodec with liba52 included made it GPL, and you seeked to use this in order to get your hands on the source-code. What he did was rectify the mistake that he made by recalling the product, and rereleasing it with an LGPL avcodec library. In doing so, he did not have to comply with your request, and there is nothing dubious about it. He's not responsible for the liba52 plugin for avcodec (which is a separate product), and he doesn't distribute it with DvPlayer.
I'm pretty sure that I've seen at least one open-source project pull access to their code/binaries until they had rewritten everything to comply with the licenses of code that was used. That's a perfectly acceptable response to discovering that you're not complying with licenses of sub-components.
I hope something similar won't happen with Gnash. The best situation would be that the bounty would be updated so that the author is mandated to state the licensing clearly in the final releases (perhaps the plugin should display a message displaying the GPL license at first invocation or so).
Well, now that you've made everyone aware of this, the right thing to do, IMHO, would be to remove the IBrowse compatibility from the bounty. The OWB requirement can stay because there are no licensing issues with OWB.
Hans
-
@Hans_
Come on, you knew that the DvPlayer author had overlooked the fact that an avcodec with liba52 included made it GPL, and you seeked to use this in order to get your hands on the source-code.
So? According to GPL they should have complied.
What he did was rectify the mistake that he made by recalling the product, and rereleasing it with an LGPL avcodec library. In doing so, he did not have to comply with your request, and there is nothing dubious about it.
I have the binaries I requested the source code for. According to GPL the source for these should be provided, regardless why or how the GPL code got into them.
He's not responsible for the liba52 plugin for avcodec (which is a separate product), and he doesn't distribute it with DvPlayer.
Come on, you perfectly well know that Chip and COBRA are very close friends and they co-ordinated this switch just to circumvent GPL. It is a disgrace.
-
Mention of IBrowse removed from the Gnash bounty page. Thanks for the notice.
-
@Piru
I have the binaries I requested the source code for. According to GPL the source for these should be provided, regardless why or how the GPL code got into them.
The alternative actions that they took were legal, and a perfectly acceptable response. He complied with GPL by recalling, rectifying the license violation, and re-releasing it.
Come on, you perfectly well know that Chip and COBRA are very close friends and they co-ordinated this switch just to circumvent GPL. It is a disgrace.
It's a disgrace in your eyes because you want to see it as a conspiracy. Yes, Chip and COBRA are friends, but that doesn't change the fact that avcodec is NOT part of DvPlayer and could be used by other software. The avcodec port predates DvPlayer, and Chip's decision at COBRA's request to remove the GPL code so that avcodec.library is LGPL (as it should be) was the right decision to make. It should have been LGPL as advertised boldly by the ffmpeg project that it came from. Making liba52 a plugin allows any GPL program using the library (none that I know of at present) to take advantage of this codec. Of course users are going to download use it with DvPlayer anyway; as far as they're concerned GPL relates more to developers, plus it's private use (you can use GPL'd code and not release your changes if you never distribute it).
No-where does the DvPlayer documentation advertise that the liba52 plugin exists. That's good enough for me.
What I find disgraceful is attempting to use GPL in order to force someone else to hand over their hard work based on confusion over dual-licensing. That's not what the GPL was written for. I agree that companies/developers should comply with GPL if they are using GPL code, but to try to grab their code based on their oversight and confusion between GPL and LGPL is an abuse of the license.
Finally, GPL projects are filled with little stunts to get around patents/copyrights, etc. I have no problem with that personally because it is legal and no other options are provided, but do you also find that disgraceful? Or do you have a double standard here?
Feel free to disagree with me if you like; I obviously disagree with you. This is all that I'm going to say on the matter because arguing about this is using up too much of my time.
Hans
-
@Hans_
The alternative actions that they took were legal, and a perfectly acceptable response. He complied with GPL by recalling, rectifying the license violation, and re-releasing it.
Yes, this prevents any further violations, at least directly.
But, it is not legal alternative to providing the source code for existing, previous releases.
We obviously are in disagreement about the issue. I just conclude this discussion by observing that A) I was never provided the source code as required by the license B) the liba52 was put back via a plugin. IMO that reveals the true motives (GPL circumvention).
-
So? According to GPL they should have complied.
So sue him and get a judge to force him to comply. You may be correct in all those technicalities, but you're not using all the tools available to you for enforcement of what they must do as result of that original mistake, even if it's been corrected since then.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHA
All this makes me glad I'm not a coder. Or at least a very serious one.
I do have a question for you though, Piru. Does GPL include code, such as MEL scripts for Maya? I've found tons on sites that I use on a daily basis, but many of them say you can't use them for commercial jobs, yet we all do, but none of them ever list any sort of licensing. Am I to assume that using scripts such as MEL and ActionScripts in Flash fall in the same category?? :inquisitive:
[EDIT] - I guess I'm asking, 'cos I have a lot of scripts for dyanmic, fractal and fluid effects which I wrote and I use mostly to emulate "spell casting". I don't have a problem with people using them, much less improving my hacked code, but in MEL scripting, it's as easy as copy > paste to grab code and never give the original coder credit. Should I put some sort of GPL in my code-base to prevent that?
Sorry for getting off topic, all.
-
Does GPL include code, such as MEL scripts for Maya? I've found tons on sites that I use on a daily basis, but many of them say you can't use them for commercial jobs, yet we all do, but none of them ever list any sort of licensing. Am I to assume that using scripts such as MEL and ActionScripts in Flash fall in the same category?
The scripts have their own licensing. When someone creates their own scripts they automagically gain copyright on them. If there is no license copyright applies directly and only the author can decide about the distribution. If the particular script doesn't have any license or it isn't placed in public domain, then you can't use them without permission. Note that while very limited, stating that a script is free to use for non-commercial uses can be considered a valid license.
Only if the script is clearly designated (L)GPL it is that.
So to protect your own work you're not required to do anything specific, all work is automagically covered by copyright already. That obviously doesn't prevent anyone from abusing your work anyway. If that happens it's upto you to sue the {bleep} (if you care enough).
GPL doesn't protect your work any better than copyright already does, it in fact only gives more freedom. GPL isn't always the best choice. It can lead into some undesired side-effects (as seen with plugins for example).
So, if you wish to give other users some rights, while still making sure that you retain yours, I would suggest you to look into http://creativecommons.org/license/
The Creative Commons licenses are rather nice, and they at least aren't infectious. :-)
There are tons more licenses around, too, but I've found CC quite useful for many things.