Bounty to get Gnash ported to AmigaOS4.1

[Hans_]

@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_]

@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.

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_]

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_]

@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